Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • The Female > Feminine > Jewish > Abrahamic > Marxist Strategy is a TECHNOLOGY th

    The Female > Feminine > Jewish > Abrahamic > Marxist Strategy is a TECHNOLOGY that can be applied by anyone.
    (European Masculine Falsificationary Reason, Semitic Feminine Justificationary Mythicism)

    –“I’m reading EMJ’s Jewish Revolutionary Spirit – spirit of course being equivalent to group strategy – and I’m realizing what he’s doing there: many chapters don’t concern themselves with Jews at all. It’s the strategy regardless of who exhibits it. And the revolutionary protestant movements, starting with the Hussites, all did, always back to the Old Testament for their analogies and emphasis. Jones, being a Catholic, doesn’t go as far as to identify this in the early Christian revolution against Rome, let alone Jews before Christ – identifying that perhaps the Torah is precisely the problem precisely because of what it taught its believers and/or because it represented what they were like already, but that’s what consistent application would tell us.”– @TheAutistocrat Martin Stepan.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-23 18:08:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672305587931979783

  • FAILURE OF DUE DILIGENCE BY SNOPES AND WHY IT OCCURS: Under the common law of to

    FAILURE OF DUE DILIGENCE BY SNOPES AND WHY IT OCCURS:
    Under the common law of tort, you are responsible for the production of a hazard, by a failure of due diligence against that hazard. The fact that the USA has been extraordinarily tolerant of hazarding and defamation, was due to the relative difficulty in transmission of information, and the relative ability of competition to counterbalance such claims.

    So yes, snopes failed due diligence against misleading the audience, and in doing so creating a defamatory tort against musk’s organization starlink. And yes the left enagaes in serial (rolling) false accusation using suggestion in lieu of due diligence, precisely because we have not yet restored the common law against doing so with updated legislation.

    Our organization works to restore (ad the court is doing elsewhere) the natural, common, concurrent law, of liability for failure of due diligence in speech, that could lead to inference and especially defamation, which is in fact the technique snopes (and all leftist organizations) practice.

    And yes I am an expert and like the most expert individual living and working to day on differences in lying, and how to reverse these methods of lying and denying through law.

    Because we know that the entire mental framework of the left, like marxism and abrahamic religion before hand, is an expression of the female instinct, makes use of double standards and special pleading, evades all responsibiity possible, and never engages in truthful reciprocal exchange, nor self regulatory behavior to do so.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @deesemonster @ModelYManiac @snopes @Starlink

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 18:21:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671584227958169623

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671564641191723011

  • “Autistic people are not the natural aristocracy”– They are the natural judicia

    –“Autistic people are not the natural aristocracy”–
    They are the natural judiciary they decide conflicts by truth.
    The natural aristocracy chooses chooses practically.
    The natural priesthood cares impractically.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 17:19:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671568627433078814

    Reply addressees: @UBathys

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671566798464876554

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Autism as you refer to it is just the extreme male adult systematizing brain laundering all speech of loading, framing, obscuring, wishful and magical thinking, and the fictionalisms such that it sounds uncaringly legalistic, empirical, and scientific (and it is) rather than philosophical and theological which don’t launder themselves of loading, framing, and obscuring. But it is those emotions loadings and framings that are signals of alliance for your subconscoius. And I’m eradicating the ability to use that alliance signal and emotions to decieve you. As such you understand the truth and absence of deceit (or not)and understand what’s necessary for victory (or not). Measurments aren’t emotionally rewarding – they’re just true. 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1671566798464876554

  • Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science, and they are the mo

    Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science, and they are the most observably consistent human behavior.

    A biological fact like a statistic can be justified.
    Demonstrated behavior cannot.

    You’re showing your European ‘believe the science’ bias. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 14:49:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671530908850036738

    Reply addressees: @Glace15840573 @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671529961578954753

  • Judaism failed at state formation and preservation because they have evolved to

    Judaism failed at state formation and preservation because they have evolved to evade costs of production and preservation of commons, and have evovled to specialze in non-productive and often destructive industries where profits are gained by baiting marginal cases into hazard -…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 20:39:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671256494115893248

    Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat @JoshFie93044227

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671254851152662529

  • I don’t have opinions. Either the evidence says so or I don’t hold an opinion. W

    I don’t have opinions. Either the evidence says so or I don’t hold an opinion. What I do know is that church historians were as systematic liars as ever existed, because that’s the origin of the religion, in semitic mythicism: social construction of falsehoods.

    There is a reason to study economic and legal history (the evidence) and to wholly ignore narratives. Just as people in the future will look back at today and ignore the narratives and look at economics and court cases.

    Reply addressees: @Hrafnskall @alsey_miller @PaulGottfried6 @ConceptualJames

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 19:24:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671237553087823874

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671237025171755009

  • Q: DOES FREE WILL EXIST? Excellent example of a question that is intentionally o

    Q: DOES FREE WILL EXIST?

    Excellent example of a question that is intentionally or not misunderstood and misrepresented.

    Can we, and therefore are we responsible and accountable for our actions – particuarly in the sense of criminal, ethical, moral, seditious, and treasonous. The answer is obviously is yes. We have free will in the context of right and wrong.

    The misrepresentation of this question is ‘are events and thoughts deterministic (soft determinism) or predetermined (hard determinism).

    The answer is that all human be havior is categorically deterministic because we are all motivated by the marginally indifferent (assuming we conflate the sexes) incentives, within the same body form, with the same constraints.

    But given that the distribution of the universe is determinable and determistic (categorizable by general rules) but not determined (these rules apply only chaotically in various distributions at varioius times in various conditions) and information is llimited to locality and humans are insulated from all but very great pressures (compared to background quantum events), and given that all human prediction is imprecise and combined of ideosyncratic experience and error, then no our actions are not pre-determined. and the cannot be.

    My argument when I was very young was quite simple: human predictive error and choice because of that error is so pervasive that error alone would prohibit hard determinism.

    So I’ve never really understdood how the presumptions of ‘mathematics’ could be appled to human behavior, when we have known for a very long time that economics has demonstrated the unpredictability of human behavior even when we have extraordinary volumes of precise information.

    And the neurons in one person’s head make economics look trivial by comparison.

    Ergo, free will exists within the limits of an individual’s experience, knowledge, competency, and error – and we are really good at ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, denail, deceit, fraud and every variation thereof.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:49:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670911704262221827

  • CHALLENGE “THERE ARE NO PARADOXES” There are no paradoxes. Instead, every known

    CHALLENGE “THERE ARE NO PARADOXES”
    There are no paradoxes. Instead, every known paradox only appears so, because (a) it’s a violation of the first rule of grammar and (b) you don’t know the first rule of grammar (c) because no one did until Chomsky explained Turing’s insight in linguistic terms.

    Worse, there are no hard puzzles, questions, or problems in philosophy. Almost all of it is vaguely childish grammatical ignorance: sophistry.

    As far as I know I can falsify every commonly known paradox and philosophical quandry.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:22:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670904817558978560

  • ANSWERING THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEM – HARD BUT SIMPLE Q: CURT: “Considering what I in

    ANSWERING THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEM – HARD BUT SIMPLE
    Q: CURT: “Considering what I interpret as your claim to some form of moral realism and you have Hume on your reading list do you have an article on your solution to the Is–ought problem?”

    Good (Great) Question

    Simple version:
    1) Hume was partly correct in that induction doesn’t exist.
    2) Popper was partly more correct with falsification and justification doesn’t exist.
    3) My work relies on the completion of the falsificationary program, demonstrating that all logic is and can only be falsificationary (falsifying the alternatives), with truth candiates surviving:
    |Decidability|: incomprehensible > undecidable > possibly True or Reciprocal > False or Irreciprocal
    4) Therefore the is-ought problem isn’t one, but another fallacy of justificationism (a derivation of ‘mathiness’.)
    5) As such, we can only falsify the untestifiable (false), and irreciprocal (criminal, unethical, immoral, seditious, treasonous) objectively, and as such, all claims of preference (individual) or good (collective) are statements of preference in a market competition for the scarce cooperation and resources to bring them about, with evolutionary consequences performing falsification of our theories of the preferential and good.
    6) We achieve this method of falsification by completing epistemic testifiability and the hierarchy of first principles of the universe across all domains, resulting in universal decidability of testifiability (truthful and reciprocal) and decidability independent of opinion or context. And no you will not understand all of that any more easily than you will understand any other STEM subject because it is the unification of the fields, and most similar to a merger of mathematics, cognitive science, economics, and law. ie: it’s somewhat hard. As hard as any other STEM subject.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @NorseJarl @Plinz

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:12:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670902303354679296

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670898891737235456

  • 1) People with higher IQ have greater self regulation (yes) 2) People with highe

    1) People with higher IQ have greater self regulation (yes)
    2) People with higher IQ have less incentive to act immoraly. (yes) Partly because they associate with people who also have higher IQs, have higher chances of being caught, but have greater opportunities for reciprocity.
    3) People with higher IQ commit fewer crimes.

    We MIGHT argue that the distribution of immorality is normal, but the evidence that we act upon it otherwise.

    It’s the same reason so many sociopaths are indistinguishable from normal, happy, succesful people: it’s just in everyone’s benefit, especially your own, to act morally, because cooperation is so much more rewarding than immorality and crime.

    So no, eugenics has been profoundly successful everywhere in every civ. Read Harpending on “Genetic Pacification” and any other study of the decline inc riminality in europ with manorialism and hanging.

    Read what rice farming does to behavior.

    Reply addressees: @XLColdJ @xMajorKills

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-17 19:46:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670156072252784645

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670150079003480066