Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • WHY YOU REALLY DISAPPROVE OF TRUMP? Personally, what I think y’all disapprove of

    WHY YOU REALLY DISAPPROVE OF TRUMP?
    Personally, what I think y’all disapprove of, is that it’s clear Trump doesn’t respect the center left to left to extreme left, and he uses your tactics against you.

    You have no arguments except the usual “gossiping shaming ridiculing rallying psychologizing moralizing” which are the feminine tactics that substitute for argument.

    In fact the rise of the entire right wing internet culture in 2016 was the abandonment of traditional conservative rhetorical ethics (masculine) and the adoption of leftist tactics of reputation destruction (feminine).

    I mean, it’s pretty obvious.

    Attached is my reduction of feminine > abrahamic > marxist > left tactics. Whereas the right’s version is what we call fictionalisms (occult, sophistry, pseudoscience.) Both strategies are expressions of sex differences in sensation, perception, valience, and expression: feminine empathizing and social-emotional undermining, male systematizing and cognitive-rational undermining.

    (And yes, I am the world expert in these ridiculous things. No one developed the science of lying before. I did it by accident because I needed to improve the Law. And it was disheartening. We live in a sea of lies.)

    And the tactics of the feminine > abrahamic > marxist > postmodern > woke sequence:

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-21 19:45:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2014061802540376152

  • @RahmEmanuel , @Acyn ; Trump is a genius because he has generated the attention

    @RahmEmanuel
    ,
    @Acyn
    ;

    Trump is a genius because he has generated the attention and incentives to resolve the issue. Previous presidents have all failed. The fact that Trump uses the same brilliant strategy to capture attention and create incentives to act, and that the nitwittery doesn’t seem to understand it, is a statement about the shallowness of human cognition – humans react they don’t think.

    So where the left baits people into hazard with false promises (yes that’s the left’s strategy), Trump baits people into settlement with false threats. It’s brilliant. It’s effective.

    As for being a bad businessman, he baits greedy young bankers into high-payoff returns, then renegotiates those costs downward afterward. You may not like it but it’s brilliant and it works every single time, because greed and status seeking are endemic in the financial sector.

    He is in a business where he is dealing with bankers, finance, construction management, construction companies, maintenance, housekeeping, hospitality management, marketing and sales. And on the other hand, because he’s working internationally, he deals with governments and corruption both public and private on a daily basis.

    You may not like him because he doesn’t conform to your narrative, and he’s hostile to your means of sedition and corruption. But the data speaks for itself, He has succeeded in personal life, in business, and in politics, and he’s going to go down in history as a reformer on the scale of Regan, FDR, Lincoln, and Jackson.

    He’s right – a lot. And if this is what he has to do to prevent collapse and preserve american people, our economy, and our strategic position then he’s doing it – and his predecessors have all failed except for Reagan.

    You just don’t realize that you are not capable of separating your moral intution, and resistance to reformation from the process and results he achieves.

    It’s ok. That makes you either feminine, a leftist, or a member of the hoi polloi. You need to be goverend and led. The question is, whether you recognized good governance and leadership or you’re just trying to preserve your sense of understanding and control.

    It’s the latter, I assure you

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-18 22:00:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2013008673422123262

  • GREENLAND IS A NORTH AMERICAN STRATEGIC ISSUE Greenland isn’t under NATO protect

    GREENLAND IS A NORTH AMERICAN STRATEGIC ISSUE
    Greenland isn’t under NATO protection in practice though. NATO is meaningless without the USA. The whole of europe can’t field anything substantial in war. It’s totally hollowed out to pay for their social programs. Even worse, france is approaching an unrecoverable debt crisis because of it. Germany italy and poland are running out of people.
    Canada is absolutely useless with only 52k total ready forces only a tiny fraction of which about 1000-2000 are immediately deployable. And if we look at naval passages, the north pole and greenland are a russian and chinese naval lake. The UK is down to 75k regulars. Tehy can only deploy 3000-5000 immediately with France equal in that number. Current German capacity is only 1000-5000 and then only if they have US, UK, of french transport and supply. The USA can field 200K anywhere in the world in ten days, and frequentl deploys 90k in exercises. And this is before we talk about air, sea, land, space, and missile power. The USA’s problem is simply that it doesn’t stock enough ammunition and depends upon ramping up production unrealistically. So the net is that NATO is roughly symbolic other than the USA, which is what Trump is trying to change – and what the europeans are resisting. Surveys show that the people won’t even fight for their countries.
    Ask a search engine for a polar map of the world. It’s the shortest distance between chinese, russian, north american and european geographies in the northern hemisphere. Its also the single optimum location for planetary surveillance and monitoring of satellites.
    So greenland is profoundly strategic. And there are only 50k residents there and denmark’s population is only 6M and it’s GDP under $500B. It’s barely equivalent to a large american city. They can’t police it and even less defend it. It would take all of Europe to even try. But Europe has an eastern front with russia, and a southeastern from with islam. And Turkey is a questionable ally. So in the current era, the north polar region is as important as the atlantic was in the past and the pacific has become of late.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-15 23:11:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2011939306978623553

  • The non aggression principle is not european, it’s ashkenazi. Europeans do not l

    The non aggression principle is not european, it’s ashkenazi. Europeans do not limit themselves to intersubjectively verifiable property, they include informal and formal capital.

    You do not know this but I am a product of the libertarian community and have understood it’s natural law in it’s completeness not the ‘trick’ of non-aggression that built the west. Non aggression is a cunning deception by not stating ‘against what’. Natural law defines ‘what’ as ‘demonstrated interests’ no ‘property’ in the intersubjective sense the libertarians and anarcho capitalists use it.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-06 19:21:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2008619837249978556

  • You are making the mistake that an alternative is an option. The pax americana i

    You are making the mistake that an alternative is an option. The pax americana is no longer possible, and the postwar consensus has been overthrown by the rise of a hostile china, russia, and islam – partly because europeans and americans arent having enough children to preserve our previous position. So you’re acting like this is a moral question when its a material impossibility to do other than reorder ourselves and our alliances to accept the reality of our circumstance.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-06 17:03:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2008585275447144752

  • As I have said, as far as I know I’m the existing expert on the sex differences

    As I have said, as far as I know I’m the existing expert on the sex differences in perception cognition and speech – particularly in deception – and I recognize that the ashkenazim are employing the female means of sedition. The question is whether like women it’s genetic (neurological) or cultural or both. I assume it’s both since it doesn’t dissipate with outbreeding.

    Regardless, I do not see the world lacking women, nor the absence of the feminine cognition in other populations.

    I just want to know what to do about their sedition in an era where we have hyper-regulated male anti-social and anti-political behavior but enabled and encoursaged the female versions of it.

    The present civilizational crisis is the result of the combination of the introgression of jewish thought combined with the introgression of women into the franchise and the economy.

    It’s simple really.
    The question is what do we do to accomodate evolutionary differences that may be almost impossible to regulate?

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 01:02:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006893953669611863

  • THE METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING DECEPTION BY SUGGESTION. The way to trust any ideolog

    THE METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING DECEPTION BY SUGGESTION.
    The way to trust any ideological trope (libertarian, feminist, postmodern, socialist, communist et al) is to ensure it’s a complete sentence, in promissory form, unambiguous, absent the verb to-be, describing a full transactional change in state from start to finish.
    This removes the capacity for suggestion and substitution – most sophistry evades those requirements and therefore allows you to substitute your priors and thus tentatively agree with a statement that is the inverse of the meaning of your opponent interlocutor and thus a deception by suggestion.
    Examples:
    Libertarian ‘Man Acts’ is my favorite example of deception by suggestion. It tells us nothing. Conversely Marxism’s labor theory of value is intuitive but absolutely positively false, by conflating your costs to you with the value of your efforts to others. The socialist trope of “workers own the means”. The feminist trope of “Believe Women”. The Postmodern trop “Truth Depends on Power”.
    All of these are false and means of deception by suggestion. They appeal to intuition and provoke substitution.
    They are the 20th century’s mass production of deception.

    A checklist that catches the standard evasions

    When someone offers a trope, require answers to these in order:
    1. Define the mover: Who acts? Individual, firm, state agency, court, party cadre, “the community”?
    2. Define the transaction: What gets transferred, prohibited, compelled, insured, or warranted?
    3. Define the boundary: Against whom? Under what jurisdiction? Who counts as inside/outside?
    4. Define the mechanism: Through what instrument (law, subsidy, prohibition, market rule, exclusion, credentialing, coercion)?
    5. Define the metric: What measurement decides success/failure? (and who audits it)
    6. Define the time: Over what horizon does the claim hold?
    7. Define the loss function: Who bears error, abuse, and externalities?
    8. Define the enforcement: What happens when actors defect? (restitution/punishment/prevention)
    9. Define the counterfactual: Relative to what baseline and what alternative policy?
    10. Define the exclusion set: What does the claim not imply (to prevent motte-and-bailey retreat)?
    A trope that cannot survive this interrogation functions as persuasion without proposition: deception by suggestion.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 19:05:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006079265406869522

  • EUROPE: IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW YOU FEEL. The USA cannot fund its internal and ext

    EUROPE: IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW YOU FEEL.
    The USA cannot fund its internal and external demands any longer. It hasn’t been able to for over twenty years. So the point is very simple: we have to deal with china. We have lost all interest in the middle east, and parties there appear willing to take up the mantle. Europe has to carry its own water. Period. End of Story. There is nothing else do say.
    We have been trying since Bush1 to get europeans to carry their weight. We warned germany not to bet on russia. We screwed up by not bringing russia into the fold after the collapse. But that was your fault as much as ours.
    You’re dying demographically. And you’ve been dropping back economically for twenty five years. We’re sort of tepidly holding on. But we are going to have to return to. hemispheric defense because we can’t carry your water – especially when you’re the reason our own people want to copy your failed policies.
    Trump is using ‘shock an awe’ to reorganize the world because doing so politically and advisedly for decades has failed.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-27 08:34:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2004833261332431308

  • Q: “To what degree, and in what manner, should the internet be regulated?” To wh

    Q: “To what degree, and in what manner, should the internet be regulated?”

    To what degree, and in what manner, should the internet be regulated to regulate anti-social and parasitic behavior, particularly in online dating (if it is to exist at all), social media and online communities? Also, should legal features also exist on these apps, like suing for defamation, and should there be international standards and ways to manage disputes between individuals from different nations? Relevant domains include online dating, online discourse and speech, content moderation, and determining what types of online activity should not be permitted. Jordan Peterson often discusses this, often related to online anonymity (which he says allows this) and the influence of individuals with dark tetrad traits (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, sadism, and narcissism) to use it for their dark objectives and expresses their dark traits. He has stated something approximating that nobody has figured out how to properly regulate the internet.
    Short answer (decidable):
    • treat the internet as an informational commons, not a feelings forum.
    • Permit any speech that is truthful under warranty;
    • throttle or tax anonymous reach;
    • prohibit parasitism (fraud, defamation, brigading) by restoring liability and restitution in proportion to harm.
    Result
    • Platforms become insurers and record-keepers;
    • users choose identity/liability tiers;
    • courts (or bonded arbitration) enforce reciprocity across borders.
    The necessary change is extending the involuntary warranty we already impose on goods and services to amplified speech and transactions.
    Cause → consequence → function
    • Cause: scale converts gossip into industrialized lying. Unwarrantied amplification monetizes falsehood and externalizes costs into the informational commons. Necessary correction: testimonial due diligence and warranty for public (amplified, monetized, or political) speech.
    • Consequence: without liability, predators specialize in deception (what you call dark-tetrad behaviors), and platforms profit from irreciprocity. Western law solved analogous problems by tort, defamation, oath, jury—i.e., truth under liability. Sufficient remedy: make online behavior pass the same reciprocity and warranty gates.
    • Function: operationalize “free warrantied speech” instead of “free speech without costs.” Restore defamation and require restitution for harm to demonstrated interests in the commons.
    A) Identity, reach, and liability tiers (users choose the trade-off)
    • Anonymous: read + low-reach post; no ads; no political amplification; no accusations; no commercial solicitation. Reason: no counterparty for liability → minimize upstream harm. (Visibility preserved, externalities minimized.)
    • Pseudonymous (bonded): higher reach if you post under a platform-held bond or insurance that funds restitution for proven harms (defamation, fraud). (Contingent freedom; insured risk.)
    • Real-name (verified + warrantied): maximum reach/commercial/political privileges conditioned on testimonial due diligence for factual assertions and offers. (Freedom proportional to warranty.)
    B) Platform duties (they’re running a commons)
    • Duty of care as insurer: log evidence, preserve trails, offer bonded arbitration, pay when users default; recover from user bonds. (The platform sells insured reach, not unpriced virality.)
    • Defamation/false-light switch: reinstate defamation for amplified claims; platform provides a fast counter-speech + escrowed-restitution workflow. (Truth under liability instead of censorship.)
    • Algorithmic warranty: if you curate/recommend, you accept proportionate liability for foreseeable harms—same as a publisher of ads or financial products would under tort. (Publishing ≠ common carriage.)
    C) Moderation by law, not priesthood
    • Replace moralizing with justiciable categories: fraud, incitement to actionable harm, defamation, doxxing, brigading, impersonation, commercial misrepresentation. Each maps to restitution schedules under tort. (Decidable, operational, reciprocal.)
    • Evidence standard = testimonial truth: realism, naturalism, operationality, due-diligence warranty—precisely the same tests we use for responsible scientific or commercial claims.
    D) Online dating (if it exists at all)
    • Two-track market: (1) low-liability social browsing (no claims, no promises); (2) bonded courtship with verified age/sex/intent, consent-logging, STI/result attestations, and escrow for costly deceptions. False claims trigger automatic restitution from user bond. (Insurance replaces theater.)
    • Reputation = insured testimony: ratings are statements under warranty, not anonymous gossip; platforms must filter unwarrantied criticism as irreciprocal pollution of the informational commons.
    E) Social media and communities
    • Throttle unbonded virality; privilege insured testimony; demote inflationary grammar and outrage that fails due-diligence tests. (We reward contribution; we tax noise.)
    • Distinguish dissent from sedition: protected dissent = truthful, warrantied, and without external principal; coordinated deceit with external alignment crosses into punishable offense. (Visibility, reciprocity, sovereignty preserved.)
    F) Legal features inside apps
    • Yes: in-app defamation and fraud claims with bonded arbitration and exportable judgments; liability proportional to demonstrated harm; loser-pays to deter nuisance. (Courts for the commons, speed for the parties.)
    • Cross-border disputes: default to domicile law of the alleged victim for harms to person/reputation; require platforms to hold multi-jurisdictional bonding and to honor arbitration awards across signatory standards of natural-law reciprocity. (Sovereignty respected; enforcement tractable.)
    G) International standards (minimum viable nomocracy online)
    • Baseline: reciprocity (no parasitism), testimonial truth (due-diligence warranty), and computable restitution. States opt-in by treaty; platforms that serve opt-in citizens must meet the standard or face blocking + surety forfeiture. (Market of polities forces convergence.)
    Why anonymity “causes” the mess—and what survives
    • Anonymity is compatible with listening and low-reach speaking; it is not compatible with accusation, solicitation, or political persuasion at scale without warranty. Therefore, anonymity remains for consumption and low-risk speech; insured identity is necessary for influence. (Freedom preserved; parasitism priced.)
    1. Mandate identity/liability tiers; require platforms to sell insured reach as a product.
    2. Restore defamation, fraud, and impersonation remedies with fast, bonded arbitration.
    3. Require testimonial due diligence for amplified, monetized, or political content.
    4. Institute evidence logging and exportable judgments; enforce loser-pays.
      For dating: verified intent tracks, consent logs, and deception restitution from bonds.
    5. Cross-border: adopt reciprocity treaty for informational harms and platform surety.(All steps convert undecidable moralizing into decidable, insurable exchanges.)
    You don’t need new censors; you need old law—truth under warranty, reciprocity under tort, and platforms as insurers of the informational commons. That combination is necessary and sufficient to suppress anti-social parasitism while preserving maximal speech and association online.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-19 17:54:26 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2002075063311556647

  • We work on this data exhaustively. But it’s clear the police aren’t biased. And

    We work on this data exhaustively. But it’s clear the police aren’t biased. And it’s clear the judges aren’t biased. I can’t testify to the bias of juries. What I do know is (a) the christian agrarian culture was effective, and post-christian urban culture is not, (b) lack of remorse in court (c) it’s not economic, it’s absence of neotenic domestication syndrome preserving older human behavior’s impulsivity.
    Human populations in tribal circumstances are hyper-regulated by others with constant chatter and monitoring of each other. And they are brutal in their punishments.
    This capacity is retained in dense agrarian cultures unified by church rituals.
    This capacity failed because of the ‘slaughter of the cities’ which was caused by the democratic party’s communist wing imitation of the soviet relocation projects, by moving black from the rural south into the cities.
    This killed the high-feedback loop necessary for more impulsive populations to maintain domesticated behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-18 21:47:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2001771390115205441