Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • The Human Argument Spectrum

    Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal to the more human to the more super-human. And that just as animals cannot reason, some men can reason only a little and are dominated by animal impulse, some men find a balance between reason and animal impulse, and some men rely exclusively upon reason and transcend animal impulse. Just as some men cannot learn except by repetition, other can only learn by imitation, others by instruction, others by reading, others by investigation, and others still by invention. We all must work with the information our biology allows us to possess. So men can be forgiven for their inadequacies, as long as they do not cause us harm. (And that is the open question – whether those who remain more animal and less transcendent, cause harm to those who have transcended.) It is true that we cannot directly perceive either our ability to move our limbs; our ability to intuit (find free associations in memory), or to delve into our moral intuitions. And perhaps we cannot modify our inner animal’s moral intuitions -only observe and understand them as inner animal intuitions. But that does not prevent us from obtaining the knowledge of how we in fact move our limbs, perform searches by free association, and feel our moral intuitions. We know that spirituality is a trick we use to invoke the euphoria of the pack response. We know that religious study in all its forms, is a trick we use to escape constant self analysis in larger, more anonymous, post-tribal groups, where our status signals are no longer directly under control of our actions. We know that through discipline we can create what we call mindfulness, but which limits the mind’s quest for patterns that we cannot alone find, and allows us to filter out the noise of the far greater density of post-tribal life. In practice, religion gives us the tools, that through disciplined use, we use to suppress the fear (or need) for the information provided by the tribe, (herd, and pack). Now, we can explain phenomenon experientially (as you do, as most women almost always do) with knowledge of the subjective experience (the animal). We can explain phenomenon as the actor, with knowledge of his intent. And we can explain phenomenon as the observer. And we can explain phenomenon by externality: general rules of causation that produce the phenomenon observed by the observer, intended by the actor, and experience by the recipient of the stimuli. Just as we can explain morality as experiential, as mystical, as religious, and moral, as rational, and as the necessary consequence of the need for organisms to develop moral intuitions, in order to limit the self and others from parasitism (cheating, and free riding) in a cooperative group: as first causes. Just as we can explain that the experiential, mystical religious, moral, rational, and first-causal, correspond almost perfectly to each half standard deviation in intelligence between us – skewed heavily by gender, with the female skewing experiential(subjective) and the male systematic (analytic). This does not mean religion cannot be used by the most transcendent as a means of suppressing the stresses of post-tribal life. Many great thinkers remain religious for this reason, even if they report far less ‘spirituality’ (elation from surrender to the pack response). This is not to say that the person experiencing, the person acting, the person observing, and the person describing first causes, ‘feel’ the same in response to any phenomenon. But it **IS** to say that conflating experiential, mystical, religious, rational, and scientific terminology in order to attribute greater intellectual legitimacy to one’s words so that one can pretend to defend one’s animal intuitions using some semblance of reason, is nothing more than a pseudorational, pseudoscientific, act of fraud. It is one thing to say “we use religion because as humans in the modern world, we need the tools religion gives us”. And it is quite another to use the pretense of reason by adopting rational terminology to make mystical or supernatural statements. For example, metaphysics refers one of two categories of ideas: either (a) what do we mean when we say something exists – a branch of epistemology, or (b) the bucket we throw things into that we do not yet understand. And as far as I know, metaphysics is settled by the problem of taking action, and the determinism that arises from our observation that the same actions generally produce categorically the same results. So as a speaker of first causes, morality consists in those rules of cooperation that prevent parasitism and persist cooperation. That we bend these rules just as we bend the rest of nature’s provisions, and just as we bend our own minds through narrative, justification, ritual, and repetition, says nothing about the universality of those rules. And as a speaker of first causes, truth *can* only mean, testimony that if understood, will recreate the speaker’s experience, and that the recreated experience would cause the observer to agree that the description corresponded to reality. All human thought of one kind or another is reducible to this same process of ‘pairing-off’. From testimony to the number system, to the definition and transfer of properties and relations by analogy or syllogism. So any truth proposition must be possible to state as “I promise ….”. But to promise, what is it that one promises to construct? the experience. And what language does he use to reconstruct the experience? Experience, mysticism, religion, reason, rationalism, and science. Now, in order to make a promise – a promise of truthful testimony, we must understand what it is POSSIBLE to promise in each of these languages. And each of these languages describes a point of view (POV). Each provides a ‘grammar’ of experience. And just as we cannot mix grammars in narration of a story, we cannot mix grammars in our given testimony. Why? Because the experiential is not rational, the rational is not causal. And what do we do when we try to speak truthfully, make a promise that our testimony is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit to the best of our abilities? Testimony and honesty differ. Honesty requires we do not intend to deceive. Testimony requires we perform due diligence to ensure we do not engage in in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit: human frailties. So in each of these grammars, these different languages, what is it possible to testify to having performed due diligence? And what knowledge is required, and what effort is required in order to speak in each of those languages and grammars? Well, let’s look at it this way: Just as we evolve ethically from the imitative to the heroic, to the virtuous, to the ontological (rules), to the teleological (outcomes) because at each stage greater knowledge is required of us. When encountering new experiences beyond our knowledge we rely on the most simplistic ethical model that we possess the knowledge to use. This is why we resort to tradition when all else fails. So the same applies to our languages and grammars of description: experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalism, and scientific. When we have great knowledge of a thing we can speak scientifically about it. When we have less, we can speak with some reason, and with less knowledge we can speak with only experience. So we resort to the grammar of description (language) that we possess the knowledge to employ in the subject matter. Now humans being as we are, the creatures of self-doubt, need for inclusion, and status signals, seek through displays of grooming, displays of property, displays of alliances, and displays of intellect, to increase our perceptions of ourselves and others’ perceptions of us in order to give us greater confidence in our intuitions, reason, and actions. And so many of us if not all of us seek to achieve greater status and confidence by signaling greater knowledge than we possess, or giving greater attribution of status to the sources of the knowledge that we depend upon to act. And failing that pretense, many if not all of us seek to undermine those ideas, words, and deeds, that discount or falsify those inflated ideas, words and deeds. So when you criticize the fact that I have used the grammar of first causes – the descriptive testimony we call science – wherein we warranty by due diligence that our words are as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit – and then defend yuor own position by the pretentious use of rationalist terminology, which at best is an attempt to rationally defend your reliance upon and need for religion, mysticism, and experiential justification, I criticize your right to claim truth or testimony in what you say. When it is mere utility. It may be the utility you need to survive and prosper. It may merely be the utility that you were exposed to and were able to master. And it may be that you need to feel intuitionistic agreement with statements in order to truly feel you understand them with confidence. But you are not testifying truthfully, nor warrantying your words, because you are practicing a pretense – a display, rather than a fact: a description. CLOSING I am not anti-religion or mysticism. I am anti-deception and self-deception. Just as nearly any mathematical statement can be described in plain language, we can describe almost anything in experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalist, and scientific languages. There is no issue describing most human phenomenon in experiential, mystical, religious terminology. It’s when we use one grammar and the pretense of another grammar more ‘respectable’ that we engage in fraud. I hope this was helpful to you in some way. It’s a very important set of ideas. We do what we have the knowledge to do. We do what we have the energy and resources to do. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
    LikeShow more reactions

  • You can be both a libertarian and a redistributionist as long as youre also a eu

    You can be both a libertarian and a redistributionist as long as youre also a eugenicist. 😉 The problem is eugenics. Our ancestors knew that.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-24 06:48:00 UTC

  • THE HUMAN ARGUMENT SPECTRUM. Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal t

    THE HUMAN ARGUMENT SPECTRUM.

    Humans evolved on a spectrum from the more animal to the more human to the more super-human.

    And that just as animals cannot reason, some men can reason only a little and are dominated by animal impulse, some men find a balance between reason and animal impulse, and some men rely exclusively upon reason and transcend animal impulse.

    Just as some men cannot learn except by repetition, other can only learn by imitation, others by instruction, others by reading, others by investigation, and others still by invention.

    We all must work with the information our biology allows us to possess. So men can be forgiven for their inadequacies, as long as they do not cause us harm. (And that is the open question – whether those who remain more animal and less transcendent, cause harm to those who have transcended.)

    It is true that we cannot directly perceive either our ability to move our limbs; our ability to intuit (find free associations in memory), or to delve into our moral intuitions. And perhaps we cannot modify our inner animal’s moral intuitions -only observe and understand them as inner animal intuitions.

    But that does not prevent us from obtaining the knowledge of how we in fact move our limbs, perform searches by free association, and feel our moral intuitions.

    We know that spirituality is a trick we use to invoke the euphoria of the pack response. We know that religious study in all its forms, is a trick we use to escape constant self analysis in larger, more anonymous, post-tribal groups, where our status signals are no longer directly under control of our actions. We know that through discipline we can create what we call mindfulness, but which limits the mind’s quest for patterns that we cannot alone find, and allows us to filter out the noise of the far greater density of post-tribal life.

    In practice, religion gives us the tools, that through disciplined use, we use to suppress the fear (or need) for the information provided by the tribe, (herd, and pack).

    Now, we can explain phenomenon experientially (as you do, as most women almost always do) with knowledge of the subjective experience (the animal). We can explain phenomenon as the actor, with knowledge of his intent. And we can explain phenomenon as the observer. And we can explain phenomenon by externality: general rules of causation that produce the phenomenon observed by the observer, intended by the actor, and experience by the recipient of the stimuli.

    Just as we can explain morality as experiential, as mystical, as religious, and moral, as rational, and as the necessary consequence of the need for organisms to develop moral intuitions, in order to limit the self and others from parasitism (cheating, and free riding) in a cooperative group: as first causes.

    Just as we can explain that the experiential, mystical religious, moral, rational, and first-causal, correspond almost perfectly to each half standard deviation in intelligence between us – skewed heavily by gender, with the female skewing experiential(subjective) and the male systematic (analytic).

    This does not mean religion cannot be used by the most transcendent as a means of suppressing the stresses of post-tribal life. Many great thinkers remain religious for this reason, even if they report far less ‘spirituality’ (elation from surrender to the pack response).

    This is not to say that the person experiencing, the person acting, the person observing, and the person describing first causes, ‘feel’ the same in response to any phenomenon.

    But it **IS** to say that conflating experiential, mystical, religious, rational, and scientific terminology in order to attribute greater intellectual legitimacy to one’s words so that one can pretend to defend one’s animal intuitions using some semblance of reason, is nothing more than a pseudorational, pseudoscientific, act of fraud.

    It is one thing to say “we use religion because as humans in the modern world, we need the tools religion gives us”. And it is quite another to use the pretense of reason by adopting rational terminology to make mystical or supernatural statements. For example, metaphysics refers one of two categories of ideas: either (a) what do we mean when we say something exists – a branch of epistemology, or (b) the bucket we throw things into that we do not yet understand.

    And as far as I know, metaphysics is settled by the problem of taking action, and the determinism that arises from our observation that the same actions generally produce categorically the same results.

    So as a speaker of first causes, morality consists in those rules of cooperation that prevent parasitism and persist cooperation. That we bend these rules just as we bend the rest of nature’s provisions, and just as we bend our own minds through narrative, justification, ritual, and repetition, says nothing about the universality of those rules.

    And as a speaker of first causes, truth *can* only mean, testimony that if understood, will recreate the speaker’s experience, and that the recreated experience would cause the observer to agree that the description corresponded to reality.

    All human thought of one kind or another is reducible to this same process of ‘pairing-off’. From testimony to the number system, to the definition and transfer of properties and relations by analogy or syllogism.

    So any truth proposition must be possible to state as “I promise ….”. But to promise, what is it that one promises to construct? the experience. And what language does he use to reconstruct the experience? Experience, mysticism, religion, reason, rationalism, and science.

    Now, in order to make a promise – a promise of truthful testimony, we must understand what it is POSSIBLE to promise in each of these languages. And each of these languages describes a point of view (POV). Each provides a ‘grammar’ of experience. And just as we cannot mix grammars in narration of a story, we cannot mix grammars in our given testimony.

    Why? Because the experiential is not rational, the rational is not causal.

    And what do we do when we try to speak truthfully, make a promise that our testimony is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit to the best of our abilities? Testimony and honesty differ. Honesty requires we do not intend to deceive. Testimony requires we perform due diligence to ensure we do not engage in in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit: human frailties.

    So in each of these grammars, these different languages, what is it possible to testify to having performed due diligence? And what knowledge is required, and what effort is required in order to speak in each of those languages and grammars?

    Well, let’s look at it this way: Just as we evolve ethically from the imitative to the heroic, to the virtuous, to the ontological (rules), to the teleological (outcomes) because at each stage greater knowledge is required of us. When encountering new experiences beyond our knowledge we rely on the most simplistic ethical model that we possess the knowledge to use. This is why we resort to tradition when all else fails.

    So the same applies to our languages and grammars of description: experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalism, and scientific.

    When we have great knowledge of a thing we can speak scientifically about it. When we have less, we can speak with some reason, and with less knowledge we can speak with only experience. So we resort to the grammar of description (language) that we possess the knowledge to employ in the subject matter.

    Now humans being as we are, the creatures of self-doubt, need for inclusion, and status signals, seek through displays of grooming, displays of property, displays of alliances, and displays of intellect, to increase our perceptions of ourselves and others’ perceptions of us in order to give us greater confidence in our intuitions, reason, and actions.

    And so many of us if not all of us seek to achieve greater status and confidence by signaling greater knowledge than we possess, or giving greater attribution of status to the sources of the knowledge that we depend upon to act.

    And failing that pretense, many if not all of us seek to undermine those ideas, words, and deeds, that discount or falsify those inflated ideas, words and deeds.

    So when you criticize the fact that I have used the grammar of first causes – the descriptive testimony we call science – wherein we warranty by due diligence that our words are as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit – and then defend yuor own position by the pretentious use of rationalist terminology, which at best is an attempt to rationally defend your reliance upon and need for religion, mysticism, and experiential justification, I criticize your right to claim truth or testimony in what you say. When it is mere utility.

    It may be the utility you need to survive and prosper. It may merely be the utility that you were exposed to and were able to master. And it may be that you need to feel intuitionistic agreement with statements in order to truly feel you understand them with confidence.

    But you are not testifying truthfully, nor warrantying your words, because you are practicing a pretense – a display, rather than a fact: a description.

    CLOSING

    I am not anti-religion or mysticism. I am anti-deception and self-deception. Just as nearly any mathematical statement can be described in plain language, we can describe almost anything in experiential, mystical, religious, rational, rationalist, and scientific languages.

    There is no issue describing most human phenomenon in experiential, mystical, religious terminology.

    It’s when we use one grammar and the pretense of another grammar more ‘respectable’ that we engage in fraud.

    I hope this was helpful to you in some way.

    It’s a very important set of ideas.

    We do what we have the knowledge to do.

    We do what we have the energy and resources to do.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-24 00:24:00 UTC

  • The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act

    Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.

    What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.

  • The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act

    Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.

    What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.

  • THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEE

    THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEED TO HELP US ACT

    Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires.

    There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.

    What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority.

    In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others.

    If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority.

    So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status.

    Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere.

    The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere.

    And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere.

    SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies.

    And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear.

    Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions.

    Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class.

    I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 03:03:00 UTC

  • MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN. Group solidarity, mem

    MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe.

    Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members.

    For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal.

    It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium.

    So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about.

    In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests.

    There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies.

    SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes.

    This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias.

    Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics.

    Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future.

    For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12.

    Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women.

    There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity.

    Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must.

    This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth.

    The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women.

    You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies.

    We do not reason we fight.

    Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership.

    Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce.

    Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 02:32:00 UTC

  • Men, Women, And Why Men Must Fight To Constrain Our Women.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe. Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members. For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal. It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium. So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about. In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests. There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies. SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes. This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias. Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics. Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future. For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12. Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women. There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity. Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must. This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth. The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women. You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies. We do not reason we fight. Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership. Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce. Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Comments

    Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

  • Men, Women, And Why Men Must Fight To Constrain Our Women.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe. Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members. For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal. It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium. So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about. In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests. There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies. SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes. This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias. Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics. Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future. For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12. Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women. There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity. Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must. This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth. The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women. You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies. We do not reason we fight. Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership. Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce. Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Comments

    Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

  • ” Women don’t do bell curves. “— a friend. That really says it all. Its the be

    —” Women don’t do bell curves. “— a friend.

    That really says it all. Its the best meme I’ve run into. It’s not just that they can’t. It’s that THEY’RE AFRAID TO. Women are as afraid of bell curves as little girls are afraid of spiders. The bell curve is helpful to the bull, and fearful for the doe.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 14:08:00 UTC