Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • This is nonsense. Kauffman’s post is out of context – a context he doesn’t under

    This is nonsense.
    Kauffman’s post is out of context – a context he doesn’t understand.
    What made the west different and extremely so occurred on the steppe 5000 years ago. The central strategy of the west has been consistent during that period.
    The medieval period’s use of Bipartite Manorialism was an economically eugenic program amplified by the Church’s attempt to break up the great noble families and their land holdings so that the church could capture the land and then rent it out becoming the largest landholder in europe. (and the most corrupt).
    The side effect of this economic undermining by the church was the suppression of clannishness that combined with manorialism led to the expansion of european high trust. That high trust was amplified by the imitation of court behavior out of self defense by the upper middle then middle classes.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-28 02:03:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1927546161113493988

  • Unfortunately or maybe not, there are no psychologists, philosophers, economists

    Unfortunately or maybe not, there are no psychologists, philosophers, economists or geo strategists who diagnose Yarvin’s nonsense. While an extraordinary practitioner of criticism – or perhaps more correctly the feminine, abrahamic, and marxist method of critique – his creativity is limited to undermining and his proposed answers but a survey of admission of his failures.
    We humans are susceptible to storytelling, but limited in our reasoning to the clarity of testifiable testimony – that logical grammar that prevents suggestion and seduction into storytelling and its subtle if entertaining techniques. And its by storytelling that the great religious philosophical and ideological lies and seductions and frauds have been prosecuted against the peoples of the world.
    Rather than the suppression of those crimes, he uses the same method to criticize them. But like them his solution is authority. How surprising is that?

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-26 22:28:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1927129859106414883

  • The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturin

    The OP’s author is posting a bit of a polemic about “The problem of manufacturing consent”. Or under tyranny, the problem of manufacturing obedience. Unfortunately like many he is missing the point: politics is necessary for the formation of the spectrum of obedience to consent. And he’s presuming it isn’t possible to constrain politicians to truthful reciprocal and moral limits when addressing the polity (market) when in public, to the public, in matters public.
    This is a common conservative failing: if the conservative does not understand what to do, claim the problem is unsolvable. Or, worse, which is almost universal among conservatives, and is responsible for conservative political factions: “whatever I understand (a hammer) is what I will propose as the solution (a nail)”. This is why (a) conservatives cannot ally as easily as consumptives (progressives) and (b) why conservative initiatives almost always fail and (c) why previous solutions came out of libertarians and classical liberals and NOT conservatives.
    One must sell. Politics is the art of sales of consent or obedience necessary for organizing populations in the production of commons. And the only value of societies and polities is this concentration of human attention, effort, and resources to produce commons which provide discounts on everything to all despite whatever price is required.
    Politics is merely a market at large scale trying to sell the public a portfolio of possible costs and returns.
    The fact that the public vastly varies in capacity to comprehend requires pragmatisms. And worse, means that the message must appeal to the median of the distribution of the ability of the polity. Ergo the greek and roman aristocracy’s legendary political speeches, those of the founding fathers (the only equivalent), followed by postwar mass media and mass democracy and the total loss of aristocratic responsibility by their replacement with middle and proletarian class politicians, and the utter failure of credentialism in the bureaucracy.
    The solution of course is to constrain political speech to the truthful (testifiable) reciprocal (ethical and moral) fully accounting for costs and externalities, and prohibiting pseudoscientific claims about humanity – this would effectively end our problems and also end the cultural divide as the left is dependent upon lying and pseudoscience as much as the right is dependent upon moralizing.
    So, we have a market for the suppression of lying called the courts, and we merely need to facilitate the suppression of this lying and fraud and pseudoscience such that political speech is prohibited from it’s industrialization of lying over the past few centuries.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 17:02:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922699000979112386

  • @CommunityNotes The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man.

    @CommunityNotes

    The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man. The author “George” used an incomplete sentence “…Americans bear the costs” should read “… Americans bear the cost of world defense, finance, transport, and trade.”
    Fully stated, Americans pay the cost of Pax Americana, european defense, insurance of borders, insurance of human rights, Insurance of free trade, freedom of the seas, minimization of oil prices to protect european economies, world patterns of finance, production, transport and trade, created the postwar institutional model of the IMF and the World Bank as well as the United Nations. At the expense of the american working and middle classes.
    The USA did this when in the postwar period it could have continued to conquer china and russia, and set up a taxation system to pay for this policing of the world under the pax americana.
    Americans were so successful at their mission to end communism and it’s replacement with islamism, that they have raised the world to near parity, and as such no longer hold postwar competitive economic advantage and can no longer afford to pay for policing the entire world system of sovereignty transport and peaceful trade.
    So everyone has to ‘step up’ and pay their way, so that americans can have such things as taxpayer subsidized healthcare (“Medicare for All”) instead of state run healthcare (“waiting times”). And that the few remaining wanna-be-empires (iran, russia, china) and their predation on their people can be contained producing a world of peaceful nation states insulated from fear of conquest and exploitation.
    Frankly americans are rather ‘fed up’ with european claims of moral high ground when americans have burned their working and middle classes to create the luxury of european peace and prosperity.
    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:38:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922692896001753243

  • @CommunityNotes The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man.

    @CommunityNotes
    The Community note is mistaken as it argues against a straw man. The author “George” used an incomplete sentence “…Americans bear the costs” should read “… Americans bear the cost of world defense, finance, transport, and trade.”
    Fully stated, Americans pay the cost of Pax Americana, european defense, insurance of borders, insurance of human rights, Insurance of free trade, freedom of the seas, minimization of oil prices to protect european economies, world patterns of finance, production, transport and trade, created the postwar institutional model of the IMF and the World Bank as well as the United Nations. At the expense of the american working and middle classes.
    The USA did this when in the postwar period it could have continued to conquer china and russia, and set up a taxation system to pay for this policing of the world under the pax americana.
    Americans were so successful at their mission to end communism and it’s replacement with islamism, that they have raised the world to near parity, and as such no longer hold postwar competitive economic advantage and can no longer afford to pay for policing the entire world system of sovereignty transport and peaceful trade.
    So everyone has to ‘step up’ and pay their way, so that americans can have such things as taxpayer subsidized healthcare (“Medicare for All”) instead of state run healthcare (“waiting times”). And that the few remaining wanna-be-empires (iran, russia, china) and their predation on their people can be contained producing a world of peaceful nation states insulated from fear of conquest and exploitation.
    Frankly americans are rather ‘fed up’ with european claims of moral high ground when americans have burned their working and middle classes to create the luxury of european peace and prosperity.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @BehizyTweets @TomReevesMBA @CommunityNotes

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-14 16:38:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922692895787843584

  • James Lindsay is one of those upper proletarians who finds self image and status

    James Lindsay is one of those upper proletarians who finds self image and status in the pretense of morality and insight, when instead he’s just another attention seeking practitioner of feminine marxist critique, and the female means of adversarial undermining (“GSRRM”), simply applied to the more radical wing of his left biased demographic of pseudo intellectuals.
    As a critical book reviewer explaining the radical’s thoughts, he’s shown capability and we must give credit where credit is due. But ss someone with personal knowledge wisdom and character sufficient to compose arguments, recommendations, and solutions – rather than feminine Gossiping Shaming Ridicule, Rallying and Moralizing in lieu of rational debate, he’s an utter failure by every measure. The left and women’s mass institutionalization of GSRRM has so normalized the technique we no longer view it as the fraud that it is.
    The Woke-Right nonsense he’s propagating is merely another feminine abrahamic marxist-sequence technique of “distraction-by-rolling-accusation” to evade the great difference between the rebellion of left and right. The left and right like the female status seeking and male status seeking consist of the left search for unearned consumption, irresponsibility and unaccountability and the right search for earned capitalization, responsibility and accountability that they cannot achieve in the current social, economic, and political order.
    These problems are solvable through (a) reciprocity – exchanges, (a) truthful speech, (b) transparent argument and debate (c) rational policy modifications.
    The feminine always fears being left behind or missing out. The masculine fears being unable to demonstrate competency and value, and inability to form or participate in a tribe capable of securing mates.
    It’s not complicated.
    James is just another ‘Fictionalist” using the feminine abrahamic marxist sequence of verbal mythicism which we call one of the four fictionalisms:
    1) Imaginary: occult to mythology to theology to secular theology.
    2) Verbal: sophistry to idealism to ideology
    3) Physical: magic to alchemy to pseudoscience
    4) Operational: divination to fortune telling to innumeracy.
    and Critique:
    5)
    A fictionalist at best is guilty of the pretense of knowledge, on the average guilty of deception, and when it involves the manipulation of the organis of the state, it’s just another category of fraud.Snake oil for the Nitwittery advanced by the Midwittery.

    So yes, our good friend Josh Lisec is correct – in spades.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    Reply addressees: @JoshuaLisec

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-13 19:06:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922367984921935874

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922093708624724342

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JoshuaLisec

    Christians, you’ve got to stop platforming James Lindsay.

    He’s only here to divide and conquer. https://t.co/gsaxdqUktN

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922093708624724342

  • I think we have defeated both Taleb’s argument and his motives for it. And his s

    I think we have defeated both Taleb’s argument and his motives for it. And his stubborn attempts to repeat it are embarrassing. While it is true that logical capacity degrades non linearly with measured IQ, (frighteningly so) and marginal difference in output, especially income, decreases above 140, the harsh reality is that I can, we can, easily tell the difference between one another over 140, with my favorite examples being Terrance Tao, Magnus Carlsen, Ed Witten and Noam Chomsky. Each of whom possesses extraordinary abilities across the intelligence spectrum, that I can understand but not achieve.

    Reply addressees: @nntaleb

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-13 05:13:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922158306426290176

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922028395283513791

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nntaleb

    I just published IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (Closing the Discussion)
    https://t.co/sR5GJEHz60

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922028395283513791

  • Pretense of knowledge. This is despite the fact that searching such things is av

    Pretense of knowledge. This is despite the fact that searching such things is available at the touch of a button these days.
    I only needed to repeatedly bait you into demonstrating you lack any knowledge of the subject matter so that you cannot escape, and instead I can confirm, your egoistic attempt at deception out of arrogance and ignorance and attempt to cover it up through rolling accusation.
    Worse, despite being on a public platform and me being a public intellectual, apparently you are unaware of my work in sex differences in cognition and deception.

    In a bit I’ll post the answers. ;). Including the economists. All of which was available to you if you had the minimum skill necessary to search for it.
    1) https://t.co/4HZddRpHIj
    2) https://t.co/LSqUOEbqt7

    Reply addressees: @SangusUK @PUB_001 @BehizyTweets

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-12 23:46:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922075998750973952

  • Pretense of knowledge. This is despite the fact that searching such things is av

    Pretense of knowledge. This is despite the fact that searching such things is available at the touch of a button these days.
    I only needed to repeatedly bait you into demonstrating you lack any knowledge of the subject matter so that you cannot escape, and instead I can confirm, your egoistic attempt at deception out of arrogance and ignorance and attempt to cover it up through rolling accusation.
    Worse, despite being on a public platform and me being a public intellectual, apparently you are unaware of my work in sex differences in cognition and deception.

    In a bit I’ll post the answers. ;). Including the economists. All of which was available to you if you had the minimum skill necessary to search for it.
    1)
    https://
    x.com/curtdoolittle/
    status/1922074242881069342
    …
    2)
    https://
    x.com/curtdoolittle/
    status/1922075410441109946
    …

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-12 23:46:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1922075998914547881

  • Your response begins in the right direction but wanders into ambiguity where pre

    Your response begins in the right direction but wanders into ambiguity where precision is needed.

    Corrective Violence vs Soft Harm: You assert that “corrective violence hasn’t ever worked in this regard.” That’s historically false. In small-group settings, corrective violence was both deterrent and restitution. What has not worked is the institutionalization of corrective violence at scale without decidability—leading to either tyranny or passivity. Natural Law distinguishes between hard harms (actionable) and soft harms (non-actionable unless made decidable by measurement of cost to demonstrated interests). You’re halfway there, but missing the key: soft harms can be measured if we have a system of measurement.

    Soft Harm is Compoundable: Yes. And Natural Law treats that compoundability as a form of fraud when the cost is externalized over time or across others without consent. Gossip, moralizing, shaming, undermining—these are acts of uninsured imposition.

    The Gossip Creep: You mention “creeping gossip.” That’s GSRRM: Gossip, Shaming, Rallying, Ridicule, and Moralizing. It is a feminine reproductive strategy of social coercion that historically required regulation by norms or by corrective sanction. The failure to regulate it—through tradition, religion, or law—has led to institutional capture by this mode of influence.

    Decidability is the Answer: Natural Law does not advocate a return to casual violence. It advocates decidability. If the harm is real, demonstrate it. If it is measurable, insure against it. If it is fictional, discard it. Decidability replaces both the superstitions of theology and the seductions of ideology.

    The Problem is Not Female Inclusion—It’s Lack of Measurement: Inclusion itself is not the root cause. The problem is failing to measure and price the externalities created by different strategies of influence. We stopped punishing soft harms without replacing punishment with cost-accounting. That’s a system failure. Natural Law corrects that failure by restoring measurement of all impositions on demonstrated interests.

    Reply addressees: @Archaic3one

    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 03:19:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920317545263083523

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Archaic3one

    Corrective violence attempts to reorient both hard and soft harms, many times the soft harms hit exponential factors(109) which turns into cognizable hard harms over time. (Yet the soft harm get lost in the hard harm flurry to reorganize) Further, soft harm is compoundable so the reciprocity question has still been partially avoided. Soft harms took hold long before the Frankfurt school or Jewish type institutions could publicly articulate a manipulative philosophical gossip. As what let these ideas in the door could be described as a creeping gossip. Which is still a decidability issue, as even males have their own interests which did eventually allow the feminine (group and individuals) in, but the quantitative aspect regarding a leg up in a certain aspect by pursuing an alternative strategy is present, and has been hundreds of times over at least the past 2 centuries.
    However, even in this articulation there isn’t a comprehensive/decisive manner to deal with the soft harms, “corrective violence” hasn’t ever worked in this regard. Laws have an issue as 80-90% of every population is technically illiterate even if they can read, their theory of mind, critical thinking and ability to think logically before an emotional impulse takes hold is low or not in congruence. Which is why religion and Christianity was instrumental (as the illiteracy didn’t matter).

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506