Form: Argument

  • “Q: CURT: HOW DO YOU SQUARE DIVORCE IN THE RELIGIOUS WITH CULTURE IS DOWNSTREAM

    “Q: CURT: HOW DO YOU SQUARE DIVORCE IN THE RELIGIOUS WITH CULTURE IS DOWNSTREAM OF LAW.”
    (TL,DR;Pretty easily – the law created the problem when our religon failed to modernize and the marxist-sequence of pseudoscientific lies took root instead)

    Divorce is the result of changes in legal policy favoring divorce, by elimination of liability for interference in a marriage, elimination of liability for breaking a marriage with no fault divorce, the institutionalization of marriage theft by the pretense of common property, and the involuntary liability of men for alimony, and especially child support, and priority of women in children in ‘environmental stability’ at the expense of quality of life, re-mating potential, and lifespan men, when given female hypergamy, devotion without loyalty, abortion, the pill, the expansion of the white collar clerical work suitable for women, and the expansion of debt and spending due to women’s clerical work, superiority at redundant or repetitive clerical work, and women’s dominance in household spending, debt accumulation, consumption of government resources (produced by men), and far higher participation in voting – all produce the incentive to NOT engage in the principle purposes of monogamy: (a) reciprocally putting the other person first (b) the economics of the division of labor by sexual specialization (c) and the institution of marriage as an economic necessity that defends the polity from the (horrific and endless) consequences of single motherhood.
    (Yes, that is a very long sentence. 😉 )

    The Marxist-Leninist-NeoMarxist-Postmodern-Feminist-Libertarian-Neoconservative-Woke Sequence (MLNPFLNW) or just “Marxist sequence” is an attempt (a succesful one) to destroy every institution of western civilization (‘march through the institutions of western cultural production’) and reduce us to middle eastern low trust and tribalism so that we generate demand for authority which the despotic (feminine authoritarian) seek to impose in the vanity that they know better as a class than the people PRODUCE by together by cooperation by the suppression of authority – and like Christianity before it, is spread largely through young and single women as well as outcast undesirable young men.

    After all, the Marxist Sequence is just the same feminine strategy applied to jewish separatism and christian slave and muslim tribal revolts converted from supernatural causes to pseudoscientific causes – with the feminine, supernatural, and the pseudoscientific claims nothing more than seduction (baiting into hazard) with the (false) promise of freedom from the four causes of the four laws of the universe (scarcity, self interest, natural selection, and evidentiary truth) – Adam may be the source of bad, but Eve like Pandora is the source of evil. Women must feel victimized to pursue their antisocial instincts. Judaism and Christianity and the Marxist Sequence, especially feminism and woke, claim oppression from what is domestication into responsibility for the self, teh private, and the common – a responsibilty that the feminine disposition evades at all costs.

    As for religion the research is clear even if the researchers are fearful of stating the conclusions openly – and instead leaving them only for other professionals to understand: (a) religiosity is a feminine disposition, that requires external reinforcement to suppress natural neuroticism(worry, insecurity), (b) or one that incdreases with one’s reproductive and social undesirability. (c) religious participation as good for children and family is a rational choice. (d) the hierarchy of denominations from fundamentalist to church of england (episcopalians in america) are rough approximations of the IQ distribution. (e) this is why the data is often confusing: participation increases with some basic education and decreases with denomination. It means that simple people benefit most from religion for reasons stated in ‘b’ above, but sophisticated people use religion for it’s external properties such as family, society, and reputation.

    About 20-25% of people are psychologically suitable for religion, with that number majority but not exclusively female. Of the males religiosity provides less competent people with greater psychological confidence than their abilities would otherwise grant them (and it works because acting like a christian is the solution to the hard problem of social cooperation).

    We should expect religion to continue to drop to that level and only mediate by the oncoing decline in IQ due to reproductive asymmetry and immigration asymmetry between the classes massively increasing the bottom and driving down the average.

    Our problem then is modernizing christianity (which does work) into a religion of philosophy (natural law) and a science (natural law) completing the work of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Darwin and Spencer, by correctly placing Jesus as did Jefferson in his Jefferson Bible as a philosopher speaking in the primitive langauge of the middle east instead of the European, and assisting the primitive people (including women and slaves) in integration into European aristocratic society and economy by demonstrating that they did not need ability, or wealth, or power, but only virtue – by doing no wrong – to produce the common goods the aristocracy produced by their abilities. In other words, jesus gave slaves, the poor, and women and even children a route to status and as a consequence ‘mindfulness’ (peace of mind) that produces extraordinary cooperation within the aristocratic (meritocratic competitive) civilization that was leaving the middle east in the dust of ignorance, superstition, primitivism, poverty, and war.

    Religiosity failed modernity partly because the Catholic Church – far more corrupt than any modern government – failed to reform, causing the Prostestant Reformation; and the Catholic Church failed again in response to Darwin, by not claiming victory: in that there is no difference between the GOAL of Christianity and the scientific (gods language) explanation of Christianity in the science (testifiable evidence) we find in the natural law of cooperation.

    If that had happend, and the church had reformed, then the marxist-squence cult could not have taken root in the academy, and the marxist-sequence academy, couldn’t have trained generations of women and elites (bureaucrats) to seek Leninist and abrahamic and feminine authority – against the natural law – when, if god does exist, that is the law he gave us. Not in the words of primitive men. But in the langauge of his own hand. Written in the very fabric of the universe at every scale from the very small to the very large.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @BOB37702515


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-05 13:51:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721163409847169024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721148949170405455

  • We have the data: (a) women grow bored. (b) with divorce and those asstes she no

    We have the data: (a) women grow bored. (b) with divorce and those asstes she no longer needs to compromise on expenditures for stimulation with a man (c) and she can extract all that wealth from a man indefinitely, while she shops for the next man or just enjoys her unearnd…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 23:45:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720587923345621419

    Reply addressees: @lauralynn137 @efodix @DaynaRutherfo13 @J58039716

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720587586245177517

  • “I genuinely believe that if you can’t explain a concept simply, you don’t under

    –“I genuinely believe that if you can’t explain a concept simply, you don’t understand it.”–

    I can explain almost everything simply but can you understand the application and consequences of that simplicity?

    So like mathematics the correct statement is that if you can’t reduce it to first principles in parsimonious unambiguous language then you don’t understand it. That doesn’t mean the general audience will.

    So, your argument true if and only if the concepts are available to the audience such that they can grasp the connection between set A and Set B. In my experience this often requires quite a bit of training.

    And I suspect the most important application of that principle is if the question is ethical (interpersonal) or moral (social, economic, or political) when most of us CAN understand that subject matter even if it takes some effort and examples to make any given point.

    Conversely, if I tell you that the universe at every scale follows only one principle and that’s the release of pressure by spatial expansion or concentration by evolutionary computation of persistence of stable relations by discovery of opportunities for organization. Great. If I explain the thirty or so laws that emerge as complexity increases, and then the relation between language and those rules and complexities, and that langauge follows the same rules for the same reason – and so do our thoughts, without a lot of examples that’s very difficult to comprehend and apply.

    So yes we can explain complex things in simple terms (calculus being my favorite example) but it doesn’t inform the audience at all ,and while it may stick as awareness of something, it doesn’t stick with them as undersetanding of something.

    Furthermore, to make it far worse, when we simplify any statement we and opportuity for ambiguity. Grammar means ‘rules of continuous recursive disambiguation for the purpose of elminating ambiguity upon which we can agree or disagree’ then simplification that adds ambiguity is effectively ‘disinforming’ people which is effectively lying – and givng them opportunit to deduce and induce falsehoods while claiming they’re dependent upon your argument.

    It is true for example that we can explain all known laws of the physical universe in an equation that’s about four lines long. But no one can understand it without the work to undersetand it which is — vast to say the least.

    It’s true that we can convert the parsimony of those symbols to ordinary language. But again, does that convey the meaning.

    What we observe is that without doing the math yourself you don’t really understand the meaning.

    So I end up with this problem all the time. If I write something simple (like this reply) and I write something dense in operational language (the equivalent of the math of supply and demand across incommensurable references) and I do not write it unambiguously (the reason for mathematical symbolism) then is the meaning present in what I write? No.

    This means we have to teach people to understand what they don’t when the distance between their existing frames and the new frame is greater than they have the intuitions to bridge.

    I understand relativity just fine but I also understand mathematics much more deply than all but a few mathematicians (and physicists). And so it is clear to me why Einstein’s equations do not mirror reality at small and large sale – because he did not understand either the constitution and limits of mathematics or the consequences of claiming mathematical measurements were entities (space and time).

    If the average person still does not comprehend darwin despitethe simplicity of darwin then what does that mean?

    If the most sophisticated philosophers cannot undrestand the grammatical error that is the liar’s paradox – nor can they define truth nor the scientiic method – both of which some of us can define unambiguously, what does that say about the problem of simplicity even of our most complex ideas today?

    Anyway. Food for your thought and others.

    BTW: I found this post by the new Twitter-X feature of “See Similar Posts” without which I might never have come across your other fine posts.

    Affections
    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @EdLatimore


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 22:04:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720562515535331328

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440483345423470603

  • What is propaganda? “Social Constsruction of A Falsehood”. What genetic predispo

    What is propaganda? “Social Constsruction of A Falsehood”. What genetic predisposition favors social construction? The feminine mind. Who is most succeptible to social construction and most manipulated by social constructions? Women. And among women who is most successfully manipulated? Single women without children.
    Women mature a bit earlier sexually but only mature cognitively when they have three or more children. Men mature later but as soon as they have responsibilty to other men for any form of capital. Sex differences in the same thing: just different capital that is managed by different means. 😉 Really. Nature is dumb and simple. It really is that simple.

    Reply addressees: @APutins


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 20:07:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720533129327181824

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720531660783989201

  • Ok. Again. Sex differences in cognition. Resulting NAXALT/AXALT fallacy. No man

    Ok. Again. Sex differences in cognition. Resulting NAXALT/AXALT fallacy.
    No man interprets a statemetn about human beings (or anything else) as other than a normal distribution.
    If we represent half the world (actually slightly more) as having a strong bias against rationalism (full accounting for costs over population time and space), that means a distribution, but a tendency of the majority, or at least a tendency of those who influence outcomes (which in this case is what matters.)
    Only a woman (or very effeminate man) would immediately react with a NAXALT/AXALT fallacy. It’s one of the primary means of detecting sex differences in text and speech.
    So you’re demonstrating my point.
    (Which is exasperating – I understand)
    But it’s quite simple that empathizing doesn’t scale, and systematizing doesn’t account for individuals. And thats the cognitive division of labor evolution discovered was what we needed to survive.

    Reply addressees: @parrhesiatruth @bryanbrey @lporiginalg @DarnelSugarfoo


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 20:01:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720531668946026496

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720527766251033044

  • ALex, You are not very good at this. 1. As far as we know, all knowledge is the

    ALex,
    You are not very good at this.
    1. As far as we know, all knowledge is the result of experience. And I don’t know of anyone who undersetands the neuroscience in this matter better than I do.
    2. Metaphysical presumptions are only truth if they are consistent and correspondent with physical truths.
    3. Otherwise they are not truths they are biases or preferences.
    4. We discover gradual improvements of our knowledge of pramatic truth toward ideal truth by adversarial competition (observation, listening, discussion, debate, argument, suit, and trial and error) – not by reason alone, or by individual presumption or supernatural cause. But by observation of success and failure.

    Instead, what you mean is that we can construct narratives and try to live inside those narratives to compensate for our lack of knowledge (ignoranc) and ability (competency) and mindfulness (ability to suppress neuroticism) as populations increase, the division of knowledge and labor increases, and we are possessed of less and less knowledge of the world around us, less agency in it, greater dependence upon it, and greater alienation from one another within it – stoking neuroticism that generates demand for such comforting (theraputic) narratives.

    Reply addressees: @AleMartnezR1


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 17:08:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720488219198775296

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1717729642264588548

  • I am correct. You are trying to preserve the opportunity for false testimony and

    I am correct. You are trying to preserve the opportunity for false testimony and false claims as a means of resistance against testifiable truth despite the evidence that all incdreases in knowledge eliminate ignorane error bias and deceit, yet all religions spread ignorance, eror, bias and deceit. The abrahamic religions most of all, because they make the most false claims, with the must fundamentalist foundations.
    I do not have ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ which would require I hold a prior and justify it. Instead I have a lack of confidence, confidence, or certainty that I can testify to within the limits of the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
    This level of thinking is very difficult for those who are indoctrinated into the falsehood of justificationism which all of religion and most of philosophy is dependent upon. But which, we have learned, is simply false. All logic is falsificationary. Therefore all we can testify to is that which survives adversarial competition.
    I have no reason to hold confidencde in anything other than the explicability of the entirety of the universe, becuase every time humans invent an attempt to claim so we have been wrong. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
    As such, you are lying. Because you are not, and cannot testify to either confidence, or certainty, in the probability of an alternative to explicability given the simplicity of the laws of the universe: “Evolutionary computation of persistence by Continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy (disorder) in to negative entropy (order) we call mass.

    Reply addressees: @HakunaMateria


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-02 17:04:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720124844442882048

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720052649188565185

  • No. It’s just cowardice and retreat. Sovereignty, Freedom, and Liberty are alway

    No. It’s just cowardice and retreat. Sovereignty, Freedom, and Liberty are always and everywhere obtained exclusively at the end of pointy objects. Period. End of story. Find me a separatist group that is persecuted by hostile states that survives. IS that what success means to…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-31 22:47:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719486381095813171

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719479461228278035

  • A superior people, with a superior culture, superior education, superior technol

    A superior people, with a superior culture, superior education, superior technology, superior state, and superior civilization are replacing an inferior people and their inferior culture, eduction, tech, state, and civilization – just as has been occurring in the region for thousands of years. This will happen. It will happen because the Jews have no other choice -and they are superior in every single dimension.

    The oddity is that both Jews and Muslims claim superiority when the evidence is the opposite. Else neither would be persecuted, contained, and defeated for their behavior by superior civilizations. This is why Islam cannot form either a stable state or a stable civilization: low trust, and low trustworthiness. Why? The religion intentionally dulls the mind into the feminine obsession with feelings – unlke western and eastern civ that excercise masculine reason. (Read my post on civilizational differences in ‘honor’ to learn that there is none in islam – only pride.)

    This started 75 years ago? This started when barbarians from the arabian peninsula destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world and reduced them to ashes of ignorance and decay: north african, egyptian, levantine, mesopotamian, anatolian, persian, and northwest indian. This started with the Romans defeating the Israelites and causing their diaspora, because they would not accept roman rule replacing greek rule, replacing the many rulers that came before them – because the region is incapable of self rule.

    The failure of islamic civilization despite destruction of those great civilizations of the ancient world, and despite the presence of the fertile crescent’s great rivers of food production and trade transport, the mediterranian, red sea, persian gulf, indian ocean, caspian and black seas – and the overland trade route we called the silk road. Why is it that with all these luxuries, Islamic ciivilization declined constantly after the end of conquests? By 1000 it had destroyed the superior civilizations, the Persians tried to restore Greek (european) reason, yet returned to ignorance, superstition, fundamentalism, decline, and dysgenia. So that every conqueror whether persian or turk like all conquerors before them.

    The only reason that the europeans did not conquer islam in the crusades was it’s lack of value. Instead, when the Turks took Constantinople and the muslims closed the ports to europeans, the Europeans created the age of sail, united the world, ended the possibility of the wealth of the silk road and the utility of those rivers, and the teat of trade islam had nursed it’s eternal childhood upon, ended. And then with the industrial revolution, like africa, islam was just another resource for europeans exploit, as did people of the region by the romans, and as did the greeks, as did the persians, as did the egyptians before them. Why is it your people are always the inferior civilization? Yet you arrogantly claim virtue? Superiority? That you are the final word on faith and the divine?

    While east asia will not tolerate islam, the west is the most tolerant of civilizations, and at the present time, both jews and muslims are returning to historical tradition: that MENA civilization is incompatible with civilization itself.

    There are six million people in the west bank and gaza. If you were good people you would find a bplace for them as we have found places for our own. Yet no one will have them. Why is it that no other muslim nation will have them?

    The same reason the Israelies won’t have them.

    And the same reason westerners are tiring of islam whether at home or abroad.

    Why do I say this? We had our reforms. China had its reforms. India had it’s reforms. But islam has not had it’s reforms, and it needs those reforms worse than every other civilization.

    Reply addressees: @mhsalameh @DillyHussain88


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-31 12:58:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719338044677922816

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719314278652485850

  • I’m not a globalist. I’m an anti-globalist. I’m also an anti-imperialist. Why? I

    I’m not a globalist. I’m an anti-globalist. I’m also an anti-imperialist. Why? I want all people the opportunity for self determination by self determined means. And there is no higher standard of morality possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-30 11:27:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1718952864314274273

    Reply addressees: @AllyRptln @JaredAberach

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1718869889845211435