Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Monarchs in the anglo-american (germanic) constitutional sense are bound by the

    Monarchs in the anglo-american (germanic) constitutional sense are bound by the law except in restoration of the law. In this case the law is the natural law discovered by the evidence of the common law.
    This is a via-negative or ‘veto’ monarchy, not one that must burden itself with regular affairs, but one that the people can use as a ‘in case of corruption, break glass’ emergency.
    Regularly the monarchy should focus on excellences in the arts, festivals, Rituals of state, community behavior, and the sciences.
    The english do a good job and their ‘informal’ constitution is about right, but the parliament is sovereign, NOT THE PEOPLE. Whereas in the USA the PEOPLE are sovereign, not the congress. As such the british monarchy is still at the mercy of parliament, where in the USA an american monarchy would not be.

    Reply addressees: @gozlozha_udasha

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 01:22:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790190889689628672

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790187896697504085

  • NO TAXES? WHAT ABOUT THE COMMONS!?!? —“Taxes are just the price for a commons.

    NO TAXES? WHAT ABOUT THE COMMONS!?!?

    —“Taxes are just the price for a commons.”—

    No, that’s not the point. It’s that taxes instead of fees produce a moral hazard that disconnects the revenue from the services, and provides opportunity for the special interests, rent seeking, and corruption that evolve into the pervasive in any government of any size over some period of time.

    The commons are important, and must be paid for. But the purpose of a legislature on behalf of a people, is to determine if they are, and those they represent, are willing to pay that fee for that commons whether material, service, or informational.

    However, there will always be people seeking to take advantage of membership in a polity, and from the commons that a polity produces by its mere existence, by free riding on the commons produced by others.

    As such people unwilling to contribute to the commons of course can be evicted from the polity for not doing so. That’s what criminals do. That’s what rent seeking and corruption do. That’s what free riders do.

    The difficulty is in distributing those costs, and doing so by some means of proportionality that recognizes both the contributions and burdens of participation in a polity.

    No free lunches. Sorry marxists and libertarians. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @platypoo7 @CatcusBlack

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 01:12:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790188479168524288

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790184550011908281

  • “Q: CURT: What is a non-false religion”– First, what does a religion consist of

    –“Q: CURT: What is a non-false religion”–
    First, what does a religion consist of? A religion suppresses neuroticism and conflict among social animals by conveying a group evolutionary strategy as a standard of weights and measures in and across generations, using the simplest form of memory retention, and most general system of measurement: storytelling using archetypes.
    So religions consist of a group evolutionary strategy, a set of metaphysical presumptions about man, nature, and the relations between, a mythos to communicated it, a system of argument to persist and defend it, and a network of rituals both for the individual, the family, and the polity, by way of the sacred (debt, thanks, and respect), the feast, and the festival, each of which reduces one another to a temporary equality, providing what we call ‘the spiritual’ which is the surrender the self to the pack biological response.
    Most religions in the past have produced these necessities by lying. This is no longer advantageous because it is decreasingly possible. Only a minority of the population is possessed of personality traits open to submission, and worse, nder mass education these superstitions and occultisms, sophistries and pseudosciences are increasingly difficult – and at present only persist due to possibility of family and social indoctrination.
    So effectively the world is searching for a non-false religion. And teh only non-false religion is stoicism (which is just behavioral modification). But it is too psychologically costly for all but the middle to upper classes, and is extremely difficult for women in particular.
    That does not mean we cannot produce some intersection of stoicism and the four agreements for the individual, secular humanism as a philosophy, and nature, ethnicity, polity, ancestor, and hero worship which are the only true debts we have to respect, pay off, and transfer to the following generations.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @HakeemDemi

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-10 17:56:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788991505387995136

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788985008931184730

  • I have a pretty thorough knowledge of the population of people competent to hold

    I have a pretty thorough knowledge of the population of people competent to hold a debate on the virtues of the abrahamic religions, and the argument comes down to their claim that religion is good for people, and mine that a non false religion is much better for people, because false religions like alcoholism and drug addiction produce negative externalities.

    Here is the simple version: any population with an average IQ of less than around 115 (pre-industrial revolution england) will include a sufficient portion of the population that requires the most simplistic formation of moral ethical and normative rules.

    The evidence is rather stark that religions are dying in the west but that the underclass is switching to state dependency especially the more influence women have in the polities.

    So for the good of all, it appears that a new religion is possible, somewhat like secular humanism combined with stoicism, or some equivalent transformation of christian charity and natural law, into a natural religion that gives homage (debt) to nature, our people, our ancestors and heroes.

    Because the whole point of the abrahamic religions is sedition against the meritocratic masculine.

    Reply addressees: @HakeemDemi

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-10 17:20:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788982576125788160

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788970218884063574

  • “BUT, BUT, BUT HUMANS ARE ONLY X% DIFFERENT FROM CHIMPS, AND LESS SO FROM EACH O

    “BUT, BUT, BUT HUMANS ARE ONLY X% DIFFERENT FROM CHIMPS, AND LESS SO FROM EACH OTHER!!”
    This argument is a false equivalency (statistical observation) because not all genetic composition is equal in impact.

    Humans differentiate from apes largely by extraordinary neotenic evolution. We don’t know the scope of those genes that produce human neoteny.

    It’s also pretty obvious that we WERE spectating – but that the primary utility of neoteny and intelligence is extraordinary adaptation by mere changes in behavior in response to the conditions of the environment.

    So while most species are particular in reproduction, humans, especially human males will adapt to ‘using anything with a hole’ so to speak, which of course, resists speciation without geographic isolation. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-06 15:58:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787512326792355840

  • WHY? –“Just A Coincidence that the Finance, Media, Entertainment and now the Ac

    WHY?
    –“Just A Coincidence that the Finance, Media, Entertainment and now the Academy and State are under the control of a certain minority demographic>”–

    ANSWER:
    I am an unfortunate expert in these matters, high finance is largely an amoral (and often immoral) business and while europeans metaphysically subconsciously and morally literally don’t think of amorality immorality at scale, and certainly won’t organize to produce amorality or immorality at scale, there are certain cultures that do just the opposite, and the Ashkenazim are the best at it.

    I happen to know why – it’s both genetic and cultural, but in simple terms (a) they’re cognitively feminine (b) discriminatory ‘shopping’ so to speak is a cognitively feminine disposition (c) hyperconsumption is a feminine disposition , and (d) the masculine disposition is to productivity, and in particular materialism, engineering, political state building, and warfare.

    So (as we are discussing in our June Summer Conference) whose fault is it – the dog’s, the child’s, the woman’s, or the man’s who fails to set limits on selfish, amoral, and immoral behavior. In other words, its your, my, and our job to outlaw the criminal. But what crimes?

    Almost all Ashkenazi wealth is produced by use of the feminine strategy (including its antisocial behavior: undermining and sedition) but more so by seduction, or what is called in the law ‘Baiting into Hazard’.

    Outlawing baiting into hazard is rather easy. We outlawed gambling, prositution, alcohol, drugs, usurious credit, and worse, gambling, prostituiton, alcohol, drugs on credit especially. What we haven’t yet outlawed, even though it’s in our ancestral english common law, is not only shrilling (Karens), undermining (False Accusations), and reputation destruction (Canceling) but more importantly financial baiting into hazard (credit) which is why the Ashkenazim were prohibited land ownership – so they couldn’t steal it through baiting into hazard – as well as social and political Baiting into Hazard: abrahamic religions (false promises) and the marxist sequence reformation from cultural marxism, postmodern, feminism, woke(race marxism) and now trangenderism (sex marxism) transforming the abrahamic supernatural religions to marxist pseudoscientific and sophomoric religions of false promise of freedom from, scarcity, self interest, natural selection, and evolutionary consequences

    These are just simple acts of fraud by baiting into hazard and unfortunately feminine men and all but masculine women are easily seduced by the false promise of freedom from natures’s laws.

    We’ve done the work to outlaw all these fraudulent, seditions and treasonous genetic and cultural proclivities, not just for the Ashkenazim who create the incentives for it, but for our own women who are seduced into it as a means of evading social and political and economic responsibility, but for the others including the men, who find utility and wealth in preying upon these women and those feminine males that behave as they do.

    Affections
    -CD

    Reply addressees: @Wordsarewordz @EndWokeness

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-02 18:05:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786094801932148736

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786042589130408023

  • Q: CURT: WILL THE PUBLIC STOCK MARKET STILL EXIST IN THE COMING DECADES? Yes for

    Q: CURT: WILL THE PUBLIC STOCK MARKET STILL EXIST IN THE COMING DECADES?
    Yes for reasons too many to list. However it will change as it has continued to change throughout our history:
    1) We are exiting the period of boomer capital oversupply and entering a post-boomer period of capital undersupply.
    2) At the same time we are losing comparative advantage in IQ, Technology, Institutions, Economic Scale, Geostrategic influence, and political legitimacy.
    3) There is every reason to believe capital will continue to concentrate in a few sectors and the majority of sectors will continue to lag – in fact, I don’t know why the measurements don’t separate those markets already (for the purpose of the news).
    4) There is every reason to believe capital flight to the USA will continue and accelerate.
    5) There is every reason to believe however that technology will further reduce the population of speculators to those who can afford the compute.
    6) There is every reason to believe that – and get ready for this – the treasury will take over vast portions of the consumer credit, insurance, and investment markets even more so than does singapore, and put that investment into longer time frames and greater yields. The consequence is that institutional dollars derived from consumers will shrink in favor of foreign dollars. The scale of this is likely to be profound. This means that the market will be deprived easy capital, and vast portions of the banking, insurance, and consumer investment sector will be wiped out almost entirely. I cold write more on this but I am one of the authors of all of these policy changes and If I’m thinking of it then so are others.
    6) So basically imagine that capital is scarce, it comes with more strings attached, and from a broader capital base, and that there is MUCH more volatility and much lower growth. And the growth that’s available will be in markets that are riskier than today.

    I don’t really think this is pessimistic. If I were to take a pessimistic stance it would be that there is a non zero chance of a world war, a long running USA ‘troubles’ (civil war) or a catastrophic civil war, and it’s possible both the world war and the civil war occur at the same time, or that the civil war will encourage the world war.

    My job is to look at these fields of possibility. At. present I do not see possibility of continued growth by consumption. So I’ve worked on ‘what to do next’ under that assumption. And it means the equivalent of a restructuring and downsizing for a major industry, until prices and debts equilibrate back to levels possible to alter marriage, reproduction, and consumption rates. And to do so without further lowering national IQ through immigration. We are approaching 97 at present and if it dips below that we are probably headed toward a second world economy. Even today we are suffering from white population decline, such that Asian and Indian populations are supplying workers, and we are still importing talent from europe because europe is unsuited for entrepreneurial growth.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @OKFootball2 @bryanbrey @hendry_hugh

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 23:41:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784005031210913793

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783995822721368199

  • “Your causal relationship is wrong. It’s not Women’s Rights -> Prosperity. It’s

    —“Your causal relationship is wrong. It’s not Women’s Rights -> Prosperity. It’s Prosperity -> Women’s rights. Just like Racism does not lead to differential performance. Differential performance sometimes leads to racism.”– @cryptodiaries

    We all make mistakes. But I rarely err, and I do not in this circumstance.
    If you had any concept of the national or civilizational balance sheet of demonstrated interests in the spectrum of capital, you would never make such a foolish statement.
    I see from your fourth sentence
    1. race observation is correct
    2. you’re presuming it’s a matter of differential performance rather than differential instinct between sex differences in cognition and the result.
    3. You’re also incorrect in the first three sentences because it is precisely prosperity that leads to women’s rights and economic contribution. But you’re not stating that it leads to intertemporal institutional hazards, vastly expanding consumption and the negative consequences, the illusion of endless growth, the expansion of debt to accommodate it all, and the destruction of all organizations from social to educational, to economic to political because of this sequence of hyperconsumption WITHOUT the demand for responsibility for capital accumulation and preservation both in and across time.

    I suspect you may be smart enough to understand this but that you might need exposition for the purpose of clarification, so please ask if necessary. But under no circumstances assume I err (I don’t), and instead, seek to understand, such that we may find fault with either person’s understanding or communication.

    Affections;
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @cryptodiaries @swpwilliams @alessabocchi

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-22 19:59:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782499609882906624

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782482915374338129

  • THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IN IT, IS EVEN MORE SIMPLE THAN WE ASSUMED. And we humans

    THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IN IT, IS EVEN MORE SIMPLE THAN WE ASSUMED.
    And we humans are at the bleeding edge of evolutionary computation of complexity.

    RE: –“Entropy does not decrease”– @curtraymond
    That’s absolutely false. 😉

    That’s what matter consists of: increases in organization by increases in density (negative entropy).

    One might say that entropy never ceases, but that doesn’t mean that the by product of entropy isn’t all of material existence and it’s effects until all the energy in the universe settles to the zero point (dead).

    Matter accumulates by the ternary logic of evolutionary computation, which can easily be illustrated with Markov Chains.

    Something which Stephen Wolfram @stephen_wolfram is doing in his research and development work: evolutionary computation by competition between hierarchies of randomly processing Markov chains – with which he is quite successfully demonstrating the determinism of the universe’s constitution and ending the theory of the ‘finely tuned’ universe, and consequently putting another stake in the vampire heart of creationism.

    And no I don’t err. We all make mistakes. But I very rarely err. And in this case I certainly do not. ;). Why? The universe is quite simple. almost disturbingly so, and certainly humbling. 😉

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @curtraymond @ScottAdamsSays

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-22 19:48:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782496696296992768

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782493225686630568

  • No one wants to use nukes first because it morally licenses retaliation by the s

    No one wants to use nukes first because it morally licenses retaliation by the same means. And in international conflict it matters. In other words, countries war – we all accept that – war is an extension of politics. But use of nukes by anyone threatens everyone so its…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-14 23:34:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779654489370247648

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779649116530004455