Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • CAPITALIST POLICE? —“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosoph

    CAPITALIST POLICE?

    —“If police investigations were run by capitalist philosophy, would the poor get adequate justice?”—

    THE CORRECT ANSWER

    Police investigations already are capitalistic. They balance the market for tolerance with crime rates with the market for taxes to pay for the suppression, prosecution, and punishment of crimes. The cost of the externalities of physical crimes are far smaller than the cost of the externalities of clerical and informational crime. The distrust produced by physical crime is greater than the distrust created by clerical and informational crime.

    The problem for the poor is that they have worse ABILITIES and worse PERSONALITIES, and even worse HABITS than their working, middle, and upper class peers, and therefore low sexual, social, economic, and political value to other people. Hence, they are poor. They have nothing to trade. And worse, even interacting with them forces others to bear the cost of doing so.

    We ended the period of stagnant human capital by the middle of the last century. That is why IQ’s are declining. We are now reversing gains of modernity by increasing the rates of reproduction of the underclasses by suppressing the rates of reproduction of the middle classes through tax extraction.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 11:05:00 UTC

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain.

    Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony.

    Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism).

    In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying).

    The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:33:00 UTC

  • Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”— Well, yes, of course. As i

    —Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”—

    Well, yes, of course. As in all things, evidence of externality is evidence of internality. This is how we defeat the fallacy that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Instead, evidence of externality is evidence of existence. In fact, all empirical science above and below observable scale is conducted by this method.

    Empirically means ‘observably and therefore measurably’. The purpose of empiricism is to suppress one’s ability to substitute imagination (non existence) for description (existence). The purpose of empirical (observation and measurement) is to ensure that you’re not adding something that isn’t there, not to insure that what you say is there is there. Ok? Justificationism dies hard in people. We have been trained by sophists both theological and philosophical and science defeats both of them slowly and with a great deal of effort.

    Can anyone testify to the existence of any supernatural entity at all, anywhere, at any point in time? We have had millions of people trying to find even one example, one instance, one event that cannot be explained as other than an attempted FRAUD by the person or persons making the claim.

    Can we however testify to the many crimes of priests, monotheistic religion, and the rapid increase in the quality of life before and after the existence of such fictions? We can identify the incentives why people lie to themselves, each other, and demonstrate the need for self induced chemical suppression of fear and uncertainty.

    Can we testify to the chemical reward of submission response being equal to the chemical rewards obtained when under the process of suggestion during narration?

    In other words, there is no evidence that such supernatural beings or forces exist. There is every evidence for intentional habituation of a submission response that produces a natural drug addiction. There is every evidence of universal acts of fraud when making claims of supernatural forces or beings. There is historical record of the incremental fabrication of religious falsehoods by the cumulative addition of greater and greater lies (religion is a ‘fish story’). There were political reasons for, and a historical record of, forcing these religions upon people who did not want them.

    Claims of the supernatural are inconsistent, non correspondent, operationally impossible, provide individual malincentives, provide interpersonal malincentives, evidence of overwhelmingly negative externalities, and are non testifiable, and non demonstrable.

    So we have incentives to lie, a record of the development of the lies, a record of the predations c

    Drug addicts have no agency and cannot help but defend their addictions. The fact that we are suggestiable, and open to such addiction through repetition is simply a biological fact. The fact that people exploit this vulnerability to create frauds and profit from them is simply a matter of the historical record.

    Religion, drugs, alcohol, escapism, idealism, snake oil. Occultism. They are all the same: frauds. Entertaining frauds. Entertaining frauds open to easy addiction through intentional repetition.

    A failure to develop emotional fitness. And a failure to develop intellectual fitness. And as a consequence a failure to develop physical and genetic fitness.

    Ergo, prosecuting theologians (Occultists), psedurodratioalists (sophists), pseudoscientists (frauds), drug dealers, fraudsters, libelers and slanderers is simply empirically beneficial in order to reduce the harmful externalities that accumulate due to addiction to their use.

    Evidence of externality is how we measure phenomenon. And the externality of sophism, occultism, and pseudoscience is measureable.

    Justificationary philosophy is just an attempt to justify lies.

    Just as pilpul is an attempt to justify lies.

    The the biology that creates demand for lies (false chemical rewards), the incentive to lie to the self, the incentive to lie to others, the results of their lying, are evidence of non existence of gods, and existence of deceit.

    There are many devices that allow us to create mindfulness, with exercise, ritual, and feast being the most effective means of providing our ‘reason’ a ‘vacation’.

    There are many that induce the ‘vacation’ of reason as well. The problem is these ‘vacations’ are addictive by artificial means, and produce externalities because of the extraordinary drive by addicts to preserve their means of obtaining vacations from reason (cognition).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:05:00 UTC

  • -“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”-

    I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that causes conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the bigger upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers

  • -“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”-

    I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that causes conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the bigger upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers

  • —-”How Do We Fight Racism?”—-

    You can’t. You can simply avoid the problem. All that happens in mixed race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of the civilization. When you increase the size of the polity you get classes. Sorry. That’s how it is for the simple reason that some people are more genetically desirable in every way than other peoples, and that’s what social class means: reproductive, associative, cooperative, economically cooperative, politically cooperative, militarily cooperative desirability. Each of us has a social market value and that social market value is what we call our class. We have higher sexual and social market value within group than across group except at the extremes. The desirability of different subraces is well documented, and is determined by ratio-proportionality and degree of neoteny. The only way to avoid the problem is to** segregate within states, or separate into separate states.** The science behind this reality is quite simple: 1 – Races and Subraces have different sized underclasses and **different distributions** around the mean in the personality traits that are genetically determined and largely immutable: a) intelligence, b) industriousness, and in rates of sexual development and depths of sexual development, and the retention of those features that illustrate retention of childhood features. (we have been domesticated just like other animals. We are no different. Some groups are more domesticated (lower testosterone, lower impulsivity, lower and slower sexual development, and therefore greater agency (self discipline of our emotions and impulses). 2 – Because of these differences **we need to produce VERY different commons** (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education and training in the intuitionistic [what we call religion], in physical training, and in skills training, and in occupational training.) The median (average) (66% majority) determines the demand for formal and informal institutions (listed below). 3 – **Proximity Creates Animosity **because of the different status signals in and across groups, and the different rates of development both genetically, informatively, and culturally. Groups that are happy with their condition separately become hostile in proximity, and more hostile in cohabitation, and more hostile in political competition. This is true everywhere on earth. 4 – Because of these differences we need **very different political orders** – from the very liberal northern European high trust, to the very disciplined as we see in religious regions, to the nearly military needed in others. I could go on but the end is the end: Trying to eliminate races always and everywhere produces a **race to the bottom**. Creating many small nation states that are little more than corporations that serve the needs of their kin group and that kin group’s distribution will produce a** race to the top**. There is a very good reason why Europe evolved faster than the rest of the world combined in both the ancient and modern worlds: small homogeneous states. **Monopolies are always bad**. They are even worse in federations and empires. China is the interesting exception since the Han slowly conquer and integrate near neighbors, and are currently in the process of doing so to the remaining border nations. The Han are the largest ethnic group in the world. And they conquer and ‘make disappear’ every group possible. The Indians, who were (at least in what is today’s Pakistan) one of the oldest civilizations, were not able to progress – we don’t understand why yet but probably demographics. The Chinese stagnated despite good demographics. The Arabs destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world (North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Persian, Byzantine, (and as a consequence Roman by raids and slave taking) and ended by 1200, with the remains of their empire was only preserved by the new population of Turks who were forced out of china’s territories – but even the Turks declined rather quickly, and the middle east is still in the 7th century in most ways. South Americans are falling behind again. East Africa was on the cusp of development when the Europeans arrived and pitted the emerging civilizations against each other. **Races** are a good thing. **Subraces** are a good thing. **Tribes** are a good thing. **Clans** are a good thing. **Families** are a good thing. You can choose between kingroup-states, or Corporate States. You can choose between small very different states, or large homogeneous states. You can choose between collapse under political monopoly, or rapid progress under political diversity. Because in the spectrum from dictatorship to anglo rule of law you must possess an increasingly optimum demographic as you move from dictatorship to liberty. **The only value of scale is military conquest**. The value of homogeneity is psychological, not real. The effect of diversity in a polity that has access to political power is always the same: collapse. The best countries to live in have **small homogeneous populations** with very **small underclasses**, high median **intelligence**, and well developed **neoteny**, without hostile **competitors** on their borders.

  • do we fight racism?”—- You can’t. You can simply avoid the problem. All that hap

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-fight-racism—-”How do we fight racism?”—-

    You can’t. You can simply avoid the problem. All that happens in mixed race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of the civilization. When you increase the size of the polity you get classes.

    Sorry.

    That’s how it is for the simple reason that some people are more genetically desirable in every way than other peoples, and that’s what social class means: reproductive, associative, cooperative, economically cooperative, politically cooperative, militarily cooperative desirability. Each of us has a social market value and that social market value is what we call our class. We have higher sexual and social market value within group than across group except at the extremes. The desirability of different subraces is well documented, and is determined by ratio-proportionality and degree of neoteny.

    The only way to avoid the problem is to** segregate within states, or separate into separate states.**

    The science behind this reality is quite simple:

    1 – Races and Subraces have different sized underclasses and **different distributions** around the mean in the personality traits that are genetically determined and largely immutable: a) intelligence, b) industriousness, and in rates of sexual development and depths of sexual development, and the retention of those features that illustrate retention of childhood features. (we have been domesticated just like other animals. We are no different. Some groups are more domesticated (lower testosterone, lower impulsivity, lower and slower sexual development, and therefore greater agency (self discipline of our emotions and impulses).

    2 – Because of these differences **we need to produce VERY different commons** (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education and training in the intuitionistic [what we call religion], in physical training, and in skills training, and in occupational training.) The median (average) (66% majority) determines the demand for formal and informal institutions (listed below).

    3 – **Proximity Creates Animosity **because of the different status signals in and across groups, and the different rates of development both genetically, informatively, and culturally. Groups that are happy with their condition separately become hostile in proximity, and more hostile in cohabitation, and more hostile in political competition. This is true everywhere on earth.

    4 – Because of these differences we need **very different political orders** – from the very liberal northern European high trust, to the very disciplined as we see in religious regions, to the nearly military needed in others.

    I could go on but the end is the end: Trying to eliminate races always and everywhere produces a **race to the bottom**. Creating many small nation states that are little more than corporations that serve the needs of their kin group and that kin group’s distribution will produce a** race to the top**.

    There is a very good reason why Europe evolved faster than the rest of the world combined in both the ancient and modern worlds: small homogeneous states. **Monopolies are always bad**. They are even worse in federations and empires.

    China is the interesting exception since the Han slowly conquer and integrate near neighbors, and are currently in the process of doing so to the remaining border nations. The Han are the largest ethnic group in the world. And they conquer and ‘make disappear’ every group possible. The Indians, who were (at least in what is today’s Pakistan) one of the oldest civilizations, were not able to progress – we don’t understand why yet but probably demographics. The Chinese stagnated despite good demographics. The Arabs destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world (North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Persian, Byzantine, (and as a consequence Roman by raids and slave taking) and ended by 1200, with the remains of their empire was only preserved by the new population of Turks who were forced out of china’s territories – but even the Turks declined rather quickly, and the middle east is still in the 7th century in most ways. South Americans are falling behind again. East Africa was on the cusp of development when the Europeans arrived and pitted the emerging civilizations against each other.

    **Races** are a good thing. **Subraces** are a good thing. **Tribes** are a good thing. **Clans** are a good thing. **Families** are a good thing. You can choose between kingroup-states, or Corporate States. You can choose between small very different states, or large homogeneous states. You can choose between collapse under political monopoly, or rapid progress under political diversity. Because in the spectrum from dictatorship to anglo rule of law you must possess an increasingly optimum demographic as you move from dictatorship to liberty.

    **The only value of scale is military conquest**.

    The value of homogeneity is psychological, not real.

    The effect of diversity in a polity that has access to political power is always the same: collapse.

    The best countries to live in have **small homogeneous populations** with very **small underclasses**, high median **intelligence**, and well developed **neoteny**, without hostile **competitors** on their borders.Updated Aug 29, 2018, 11:11 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 11:11:00 UTC

  • Why do I want to end the abrahamic church? To end deceits against my people, pre

    Why do I want to end the abrahamic church?

    To end deceits against my people, prevent future deceptions of my people, to deprive good people of false hopes and lost causes, and educate them… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=287310188532545&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-26 22:48:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033848652643672064

  • I’m trying to end the institution of lying forever, and the church as an institu

    I’m trying to end the institution of lying forever, and the church as an institution of lying must end, just as every other institution of lying must end.

    NO MORE PILPUL, NO MORE CRITIQUE,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=287297971867100&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-26 21:51:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033834227169730560

  • National Socialism via Law

    SO THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT I PROPOSE SOLVING THIS PROBLEM (NATIONAL SOCIALISM) VIA LAW RATHER THAN AUTHORITARIAN RULE. —“The only people forced to compete are middle class whites. There’s socialism for the pharmacapitalists, socialism for the MIC, socialism for Wall Street moneychangers, socialism for International finance, socialism for ZOG bugmen, and socialism for nonwhites at the behest of the former to buy their votes, all at the expense of the only class actually getting unfettered capitalism. (((They))) don’t mean by ‘freedom’ or ‘capitalism’ what whites mean. They demand the “freedom” to privatize profits and socialize costs. This is what capitalism is in their view and how it exists in ZOG occupied states. There is no way to force them to compete. As a necessary step in doing so we must collectivize, and in the process of that collectivization we will have war waged against us. They can only be expelled or destroyed. They don’t accept the premise of competition with the goyim as legitimate.”— Joseph Smith

    All of this is fixable.