Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • We can only say that our work provides a means of continously suppressing the po

    We can only say that our work provides a means of continously suppressing the possible means of human invention of falsehoods, frauds, parasitism and conflict generation. We don’t promise utopia. We just promise that it is entirely possible to incrementally preserve a positive trajectory for ourselves and for mankind. As such we might be correct in that we will facilitate progress toward utopia, but if we did reach utopia, human behavior would destroy it as a consequence. We cannot end the struggle with nature without ending ourselves.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @earrylllison

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-27 00:05:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839456326231179264

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839439572230693260

  • It’s not just an opinion, it’s what the founders of fascism (National socialism

    It’s not just an opinion, it’s what the founders of fascism (National socialism instead of international socialism) said was the purpose of fascism:
    1 – The English Invention of the Modern classical liberal state was fine for island peoples who are naturally defended by the oceans. But for those people on the ‘world island’ of eurasia, surrounded on one side by the enemies (french) who had destroyed german civilization (Napoleon) forcing them to form a strong central state in defense. And surrounded by other enemies (russian) communists on the other, despite the german vast investment in modernizing the eastern european states since the age of the Hanseatic League.
    2 – The english liberalism was too anarchic and too founded on its colonies and trade, while the french were irrational compared to the germans who found their german phenomenological rationalism a superior alternative to english legalism, french moral sophistry, and pseudoscientific and despotic jewish communism.
    3 – The Weimar had failed, and the germans needed some means of survival after the pains of the first world war. And the fascists provided it – and the germans loved it.
    4 – It is very hard to argue with either italian or german fascism in the context of the age. It’s even hard to argue with current Chinese Fascism. And while it is still in it’s early stages, it’s rather obvious that the fascists, who did in fact produce the optimum political order of the day by any possible measure given their circumstances, were other than visionary and in retrospect made the right choice. Furthermore, also, as intellectual trends tend to, becoming rather obvious that the anglosphere should have stayed out of WW1 and WW2 because germany was in the right in both wars – especially when through the lens of what had been done to her.

    Reply addressees: @J58039716

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-27 00:01:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839455332546105344

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839445251024732376

  • THE REASON FOR OUR COLLAPSE No of course not. 1) the end of the postwar advantag

    THE REASON FOR OUR COLLAPSE
    No of course not.
    1) the end of the postwar advantage of american industry as the world rebuilt.
    2) the introduction of cheap immigrant labor under the 68 immigration act.
    3) the introduction of the pill and no fault divorce and the collapse of dating, mating, reproduction, the family and high investment parenting back to historical class lines.
    4) The export of industry and jobs in response to the conspiracy between labor, unions, and the left – unions and the left, seeking to imitate the socialists, killed the golden goose.
    5) The ‘slaughter of the cities’ and the ‘destruction of the black family and culture’ by the left’s “Great Society Project”.

    The right has gone – fast – from ‘the left will learn’ to ‘they will never learn, women and non-europeans are a problem, they’re using immigrants to replace us to obtain power, and they’re seeking power to repeat the failures the rest of the world has engaged in, even if only on the scale of the european maternal system which is currently collapsing for the same reasons ours are collapsing.

    Civil war comes.

    Reply addressees: @VRfutureop

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-14 14:21:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834960580043501568

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834949263949717525

  • Because there are no limits on what can be imposed as a result of a constitution

    Because there are no limits on what can be imposed as a result of a constitutional convention. In practice we have two choices: we would either propose amendments if we thought it was possible (it’s not – the state and its clients are too numerous and with too many resources), or we would follow the founders and construct a common law suit against the state, under threat of revolution if those complaints were unanswered. That is in fact what the declaration consists of: a common law suit against the state. And we have just as much legal right and precedent to do so as did the founders. This is the trajectory our organization presumes and it is the one we are following because we believe war is a deterministic outcome and the only solution deterministic outcome is to attempt to solve the problem prior to the outbreak of violence the consequences of which would be random, and throw the world into chaos.

    Reply addressees: @FuryForth

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:05:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833567514799808513

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833547756377432327

  • It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead s

    It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead say that any premise must be constructable from first premises – and if not we may not claim it is true. And that all arguments derived therefrom must satisfy the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
    What that means is that there are very few general rules in the universe, and that if premises can be constructed from first principles (effectively ‘laws’) then we can claim we testify truthfully.
    The problem with most philosophy is that it’s orgins are in mathematics and as such are statemetns about words instead of statements about evidence.
    The value of economics (neutral language) and law (demonstrated interest, imposition of costs, motive) are that they answer the questions that philosophical and theological discourse evades by every possible means – the truth.

    That’s the short version. I’m in the middle of something. If you need further clarification let me know.

    Reply addressees: @andrewkatz4

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 17:57:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833565396823379970

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833559230441304206

  • The only sentence that matters is the obvious: “Men conformed to a higher degree

    The only sentence that matters is the obvious: “Men conformed to a higher degree on difficult and logical questions.”

    Well, of course: for the same reason the sciences converge over time: truth causes convergence.

    But the study doesn’t state the corollary: “Women conform to a higher degree on preferential, emotional, and social questions.”

    I wonder if people read and understand the study. Probably not.

    We’ve see this same effect in the need to dumb down IQ and SAT tests in order to reduce the difference between male and female test results.

    We see the absence of sex differentiating questions in particular in the relative verbal pictorial experiential vs the spatio-temporal, model-transformational, objective and the consequence of predicting outcomes at scale.

    We’ve seen this same effect in the development of personality testing, where the big 5 Traits were an attempt to create a sex independent measure – which remained irrelevant until we added sex dependency back in to personality measures with Facets.

    And we see the same effect in classrooms as women seek to suppress competition and preserve feelings despite that it causes failure of adaptation and maturation.

    I mean, I do this sort of thing for a living. And my work on sex differences in lying in particular has been fruitful. Especially the female effort to shame vs the male effort to demonstrate status by objective correction.

    (I cover most of the overview dimensions here: https://t.co/CWUmeJueIn. But you can find much of my permutations on it here: https://t.co/yZ8Nnkhp0U )

    Reply addressees: @jess_ann_pin @ememess

    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-04 13:57:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1831330865701335040

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1831082143046595056

  • Consciousness is the natural outcome of sufficient memory (neural volume) organi

    Consciousness is the natural outcome of sufficient memory (neural volume) organized in a sufficiently recursive hierarchy (humans it’s back to front), combined with the origin of all cognition as organization of the body (particularly the bilateral body) for movement, and the evolution of that movement for the purpose of wayfinding. If you have a sense of homeostasis, memory, hippocampal region’s indexing of memories,, even the most elementary development of it, and enough recursive volume (hierarchy) you will develop consciousness simply because the capacity to predict increasing variation of potential increases in wants (consumptions), is a function of the neural volume to do so, and recursion of that memory hierarchy produces the ‘experience’ of continuousness – with humans its around three seconds.
    It’s not even complicated. Even Qualia is trivial. What else to you expect stimuli to feel like? Why would you think colors would be experienced as they are when there is no other way to organize them such that we perceive them.

    Reply addressees: @bierlingm @SMcfarnell

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-24 19:06:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827422186191171586

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827267927537549395

  • I would be happy to allow such theologians to attempt to run circles around my a

    I would be happy to allow such theologians to attempt to run circles around my analysis.

    And yes, I have read augustine and aquinas – and if you understood the development of natural law from aristotle, through Aquinas, through Blackstone and finally my work you’d grasp that it’s a civilizational project – an attempt to reduce european success into empirical, scientific, and finally operational terms

    There is no theologian live or dead that would survive an argument with me. Sorry.

    Even the best I know of merely takes the Aquinan position that I’m correct for the mind, but the spirit needs faith – which I would agree with. I just question what group strategy the faith indoctrinates one into. Because most religions caused failyre of their civilizations to develop by 800ad.

    Try it. No one will take it. Try to find anyone.

    Reply addressees: @RenOfMen @Alex70008182 @beherleader

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-16 18:17:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824510733566218241

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824441026297422232

  • This is a common prevarication. It is a matter of long standing common law, that

    This is a common prevarication. It is a matter of long standing common law, that it does not matter what you intend, it matters onlly whether you have performed sufficient due diligence to promise a truth claim.
    Since you cannot perform due diligence on claims, and you choose to anyway, while this is common, it is still deception and a tort (crime)
    You could say you have faith in such a thing, you can say you believe in such a thing, your could say you have confidence in such a thing, but you may not claim it is true.
    The reason being
    (a) you may be ignorant (honest) but irresponsible (b) you may have biases or agendas or commitments and again irresponsible for failure of self regulation, or (c) you may intentionally act irresponsibly. But you are not the judge of whether you commit a crime and whether your intent matters. Instead, we look for motive. You have a motive for (a) claiming truth that which is not testifiable, (b) a motive for doing so (c) even if that motive is petty and the consequences merely a common harm to the informational commons (others). (d) and forcing others (like me) to defend the commons from your irresponsibility.

    Reply addressees: @repairmanscully @martinmbauer

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-14 00:01:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823510135588732928

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823506863050088740

  • Criticizing people for ‘who they are’ is criticizing their thoughts words and de

    Criticizing people for ‘who they are’ is criticizing their thoughts words and deeds. Who they are means their identity. Their identity is a tribal alliance that takes precedence in competition and opposition to others. The general demand for ‘equality’ of anything other than equal treatment under the law, is an attempt by those who are a detriment to high trust civilization to gain returns from those who contribute to high trust civilization.

    If you cannot speak truth before face, you are unfit for advanced civilization. And other than western europeans, and to a lesser degree the japanese, no other people appears capable of doing it- to the detriment of civilization.

    Reply addressees: @nazirafzal

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-10 03:30:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822113307752271872

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821883280301408417