Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHY DO HUMANS GENERATE DEMAND FOR “RELIGION”? (whether scientific, philosophical

    WHY DO HUMANS GENERATE DEMAND FOR “RELIGION”?
    (whether scientific, philosophical, mythological, or theological)

    Religion does not need to solve the problem of the universe, since there are tribes with no consiousness of such a thing. Religion solves the problem of alienation caused by anonymity as populations scale.

    Religion universally ‘works’ by creating a ‘debt’ perception which provokes our submission response, which when practiced together reduces aggression into non-aggression.

    When combined with prosociality of the the feast celebration (post-hunt feast), and the prosociality post feast, we generate a sense of indifference if not equality that sedates our alienation.

    Mythology then creates explanations that further reduce alienation by producing additional mindfulness.

    Lastly, standards of behavior produce ‘weights and measures’ that preven aggressions that allow cooperation at scale, allowing families, clans, tribes, and nations to cooperate desipte the idiosyncratic traditions and myths they developmed on their own.

    So that is why religions grow and change with population trade and political organization: weights and measures of non-aggression, producing mindfulness despite pervasive alienation.

    Its a human bias to assume the universe started or needed to start. The universe exists. We do not know which model of the universe is correct. (a) It may be that there is one local bubble, ours, that expands and contracts or expands and dissipates (b) or that there is a ‘froth’ of bubbles (a multiverse) each of which expands and dissipates, or expands and collapses (c) or if the universe is infinite and within it are periodic explosions that create regions we call universes that expand and dissipate (d) or if there is something larger than the universe as we see it producing the pressure (energy) we observe in our universe. (e) it is not even clear that our theories of expansion and redshift are correct, and it might be that what we call the big bang(s) occur everywhere at once etc. (f) And worse, we are not clear that time has any meaning given that while sequence exists but that time is determined by the rate of change of all within the universe dependent upon energy density of the quantum background and rate of speed as anything travels through it. In other words time may only exist during and within any given universe and be irrelevant outside of it.

    And the odd (absurd) contradiction is made by those who claim that such a unverse couldn’t be eternal, and therefore must be started by magical entity that is eternal? 😉

    One need only say “I don’t know”. I don’t know which of those is true, but that’s the best information we have – and to have confidence (real), not faith (supernatural) in man’s demonstrated ability TO know – gradually, fitfully, but with near certainty. (At least western man’s. Other civs aren’t very good at ‘truth’.)

    Conversely we have the odd human anthropomorphic vain self delusion that any entity external to the universe, of the universe or in the universe we live in, cares a whit about us given that the universe is a vast irradiated wastely hostile to all life.

    Life is deterministic. It will occur if it can. It’s just very difficult to do so given the hostility of the universe.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Stealth_Bandit @thedualMan

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-22 15:23:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1660667601071079426

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1660544060896198657

  • I’m not sure why this isn’t understood, but maybe I need to do a video on the fi

    I’m not sure why this isn’t understood, but maybe I need to do a video on the first rule of grand strategy:

    Given three factions A, B, C. Where A is the largest and most powerful, then B, then C. Where A can defeat B or C but not B and C, even if B and C are enemies, B and C both benefit from an alliance against A.

    You are C imagining you can defeat B and A.
    Christians are the weakest group, ethnonationalists less weak, constitutionalists less weak, civic nationalists less weak, neoliberals and internationalists strongest.

    Why? Everyone stronger than you prefers everyone stronger than they are to you who are weaker. And it’s because you demonstrate you’re irresponsible. And that’s because you’re anti-intellectual.

    We’ve tried to provide an intellectual foundation to help you but you’ve played the purity spiral game with us as you have with everyone. And you’re losing because of your purity spiral. When the people who win just keep taking advantage of every incremental opportunity – they don’t get caught up in self destructive purity spirals.

    You’re being exterminated because you’re anti intellectual impulsive, and self impressed with a purity that means. you’re outcasts of everyone who could ally with you.

    You’re like women who assume they have sexual market value but don’t. You act like you matter. But by your actions you insure that you don’t.

    No I don’t like this situation. But it’s how it is. And there is no way to fix it. We’ve tried.

    Reply addressees: @xBronqo

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-21 14:33:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1660292839257808897

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1660274365697597443

  • Another depressing day tolerating the right’s infantilism that’s now as bad as t

    Another depressing day tolerating the right’s infantilism that’s now as bad as the left’s. 🙁 The right is useless without hierarchy. Why? They are willing to take responsibiilty within their range of compentency but without that hierarchy they try to assert their competency far beyond the limits of their understanding and ability. The left keeps it simple, works as a mob, to constantly and incrementally undermine all demand for responsibility and so has no need of hierarchy.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-20 01:49:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1659738045296287744

  • The economic question is whether savers have a right to appreciation of currency

    The economic question is whether savers have a right to appreciation of currency at expense of those not yet able to save. The answer has been ‘no’ because it’s self defeating. Conversely do savers have a right to preservation of purchasing power. The answer has been ‘no’ because there are other assets to invest in. And finally, those who construct long term agreements (contracts) have a right to stable purchasing power. The answer has been no, and they can accomodate for it. Of these reasons only the last has meaningful economic merit. The stability of purchasing power must not interfere with the production cycle.

    Reply addressees: @tryanph

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-18 11:50:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1659164567388184576

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1659125678862729216

  • THE SACREDNESS OF EUROPEAN ROYALTY, LAW, FAITH (Trifunctionalism) Well, I’d make

    THE SACREDNESS OF EUROPEAN ROYALTY, LAW, FAITH
    (Trifunctionalism)

    Well, I’d make undermining (“GSRRM”), meaning gossiping, shaming, ridiculing rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, insult and undermining of the Royal Familes a crime of sedition, and tolerate only rational respectful criticism of policies, crimes, or violations of traditional discipline respect and ritual.

    For those of you who don’t understand it, Western civilization is trifunctional with three sacred institutions: the martial aristocracy, the neutrality of the natural law and the judiciary, and the non aggression and caretaking of the faith and its priesthoods, whteher supernatural or secular.

    This trifunctionalism allows competition between the three sets of elites that master the three means of cooperation vs coercion: masculine military (state) of force and defense, neutral economy (judiciary) of reciprocity and duty, and feminine faith (family) of seduction and care.

    No other civilization is trifunctional: preventing authority by preservation of internal competition using the natural (scientific) law of cooperation: tort.

    But (there is always a but), while trifunctionalism provides continuous competition between the three classes of elites, thereby ensuring that none can impose their monopoly form of authority upon us, leaving only cooperation between factions within limits, the weakness of trifunctionalism is that it is more tolerant of innovation, and unfortunately more tolerate of including innovations in sedition especially from propaganda, finance, and cults, using deception, pseudoscience sophistsry occultism, and false promises of freedom from nature’s laws.

    So we must be ever vigilant against those who would seek to undermine any one of our ‘sacred’ institutions of state, law, and faith. And not seek to empower any of them to the detriment of the others, by invading the window of responsibility of one another.

    Love you all.

    Cheers.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natual Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-14 01:23:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657557273051295744

  • “Q: CURT; You often say women don’t chose the right mate if they’re not socializ

    –“Q: CURT; You often say women don’t chose the right mate if they’re not socialized properly. Can you explain that more thoroughly please?”–

    Great question.

    Women are attracted to what they understand as dominance expression (safety). The problem is teaching women what forms of dominance expression (productive competency, demonstrated responsibility) results in the formation or relationships, marriages, families, and successful offspring given the time taken for high investment parenting necessary for the preservation of the returns on high trust for western civilization.

    In the absence of that training, women will follow the most primitive mating impulse that provides the shortest term attention, stimulation, status, and gratification – in other words, female mating instincts are contrary to responsibility because female instincts are contrary to responsibility – until they have children – and only for her children.

    The female instict when not directed to the responsibility for her children leads always and everywhere to saturation of the marketplace with her demand for self image and status seeking by hyperconsumption, hyperattention (also hyperconsumpption) and hypergamy (also hyperconsumption) and the evasion of all responsibility for the commons (also hyperconsumption.)

    So her problem is not falling into seduction by short term dominance expression for reproductive survival in natural selection in absence of male investment, and instead for longer term durability for quality of continuous male investment under civilizational selection (markets). Similar to how men must learn to work, build institutions governments, and armies instead of raid.

    In other words evolution provides women with a fallback instinct in case civilization collapses. But without culture, norms, traditions and institutions, evolution of people within civilization will never survive or evolve within civilization. In other words genetic instinct for survival by natural selection hasn’t caught up with trained intuiition for survival in civilizational selection.

    In other words evolution provides a fallback instinct in case civilization collapses, but without culture, norms, traditions and institutions, evolution of people within civilization will never evolve within civilization.

    In other words genetic instinct for survival by natural selection hasn’t caught up with trained intuiition for survival in civilizational selection.

    So in our current mouse utopia, women are causing civilizational collapse, that exists only because of the disintegration of the traditional (not nuclear) family, labor mobility, the delay of reproduction into the 30s due to education, higher eduction, and employment for the purpose of hyperconsumption.

    The males act accordingly, and as such a few males make only opportunisticaly and not reproductively, and male NEED for responsibility greater than themselves never develops, even if they don’t impose hyperconsumptive costs on the commons.

    We are dying for the same reason mice do in mouse utopia.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-13 18:16:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657449756635873283

  • Q: WHY IS LEARNING P-LAW HARD – OR AT LEAST TIME CONSUMING? (Putting Learning Ou

    Q: WHY IS LEARNING P-LAW HARD – OR AT LEAST TIME CONSUMING?
    (Putting Learning Our Work in P-Law Into Context.)

    “You follow @Whatifalthist to learn and identify the What. You follow us to learn how the How, and to prove he is right, and so are we.”

    Imagine that you’re trying to learn the whole series of formal logic, programming, basic physics, basic cognitive science, linguistics, the series of behavioral, micro, macro economics, comparative law, and comparative civilization.

    We identify the common pattern across all those disciiplines which makes each of them easier to undrstand. But you need at least a basic understanding of all of them to know what the terms mean.

    You learn it by doing it. It takes a couple of years of effort. Some people naturally understand it faster and some slower. More life experience in a broader range of contexts helps. More knowledge of at least one science helps. And a predisposition to prefer the truth regardless of how we feel about it matters at least as much. But with work, most people can do some or all of it.

    In fact, our evidence is that almost anyone can memorize and learn and apply the ethics and morality with relative ease, and with a little more effort learn the sex differences in cognition, and the sex differences in lying – and between ethics and sex differences that’s much of what most people want to know to understand the social and political world we live in.

    So we are creating a set of posters that contain the ‘laws of nature’ so to speak. And once you are familiar with the material, these posters, show how everything is incrementally constructed from physics to behavior to culture to language (to lying and cheating and stealing). So we are in process of producing what we call the “Pamphlet” that reduces everything to that shorthand. Until we show people that outline we won’t know how muc more detail is necessary since the logic in that outline is pretty obvious.

    The underlying methodology is trivially simple: continuous recursive disambiguation of terms into a series of ordinal measurements. Continuous recursive disambiguation of all disciplines into a hierarchy of first principles of causality. At every level of emergence of new possibiliteis – meaning each discipline – we list the new properties and operations that are avilable. Each is a grammatical, and vocabular ‘paradigm’. We organize these paradigms from most precise (deflated) to most imprecise (inflated). This produces a higerarchy of grammatical (ordinal) logic just like the mathematical hierarcy of complexity. We call this system of logic the grammars. Then we compose proofs of construction from those first principles, and described by those terms, in the context of those paradgms. In other words we UNIFIY ALL THE SCIENCES AND LOGICS INTO ONE.

    These underlying rules of logic of what we do can be memorized. Why? There are only so many principles involved. Twenty something principles in ternary logic of evolutionary computation from physics to civilizational differences, and then and sex differences, behavioral acquisitionism, demonstrated interests, the logic of cooperation, or reciprocity, of truth, the european (natural) group evolutionary strategy, and perfect (scientific) government.

    So it might be easier to describe what we do as a ‘new math’ that uses terms as constrained variables, and that describes all behavior across all disciplines. As such it’s a bit like studying mathematics from arithmetic to analysis – except we use terms that are meaningful rather than abstract.

    And if you watch what our people write, it’s essentially equations using terms (ordinal) instead of numbers (cardinal).

    So while it’s technically computation, in the end it’s is much more like math and physics than philosophy

    Cheers.

    Reply addressees: @BlakeAn77455669

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-13 17:59:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657445426293817346

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657401692738953216

  • WHY DO BOTH SEXES NEED A MOTHER UNTIL AGE NINE, AND BOTH SEXES NEED A FATHER AFT

    WHY DO BOTH SEXES NEED A MOTHER UNTIL AGE NINE, AND BOTH SEXES NEED A FATHER AFTER AGE NINE?
    (answer here) (note: version edited to correct typos)

    It’s not just boys that require fathers; it’s girls too. And a lot of these girls who are broken are so because of a lack of paternal reinforcement of self-regulation, including discounting of others’ opinions, accusations, and biases.

    Women can’t be attracted to men who are good for them if (a) they don’t know – meaning ‘feel’ – what good means because they have no examples they’ve learned from, (b) they can’t self-regulate their female impulses by masculine intolerance for exceeding social and political limits, (c) and they can’t self-regulate against conformity – especially to either the pettiness and divisiveness of ‘mean girls’ or to the bad female behavior that manifests when women lack children and express their hyper-empathizing hyper-consumption, hyper-status seeking, hypergamy and emotional instability instead.

    Women evolved all these ‘hyper-traits’ to extend their emotions and nervous system over a passel of fragile offspring.
    -vs
    Men evolved hyperphysical, mechanical, territorial, and political traits for organizing a non-fragile polity for the benefit of women and children.

    And so:

    Men have no need for status and responsibility without responsibility for women and children.
    -vs-
    Women demand irresponsibility, hyperattention, and hyperconsumption, hyper status, and hypergamy UNLESS they are responsible for children.

    As such, the sexes, always and everywhere are not only unequal but mirror images of one another. Always and everywhere.

    All human differences in biases and preferences originate in sex differences in sensation, perception, prediction, valuation, cognition, and intersocial relation.

    The differences in male and female brains are well understood despite postwar pseudoscientific suppression by the activist left.

    They are:

    Feminine prey bias, lateral (more), empathizing in time, seeking competition by accumulating attention, redistribution, conducting offense by gossiping rallying saming and undermining, and seeking status through evasion of responsibility for commons, accumulating resources of others, displaying hyperconsumption, and hypergamy.
    -vs-
    Masculine predator bias, longitudinal (faster), systematizing over time, seeking competition by accumulating skills, allies, influence and resources, conducting offense by demonstration of competency in physical, political, or conceptual achievement, gaining status by responsibility for commons.

    Humans domesticated one another. The singular direction of human evolution over the past 130k years is just neoteny: domestication syndrome that trades lowering aggression for extending development, producing increasing self regulation and resulting opportunity for cooperation – and oddly, a longer lifetime.

    Otherwise we’re still the great ape underneath.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-12 20:41:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657123866580250630

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657098328708898842

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    WHY DO BOTH SEXES NEED MOTHER UNTIL AGE NINE, AND BOTH SEXES NEED FATHER AFTER AGE NINE?
    (answer here)

    It’s not boys that require fathers; it’s girls. And a lot of these girls who are broken are so because of a lack of paternal reinforcement of self-regulation and discounting of others’ opinions, accusations or bias.

    Women can’t be attracted to men who are good for them if (a) they don’t know what it means, and (b) they can’t self-regulate female impulses (c) they can’t self-regulate against conformity – especially to female behavior when women lack children and express their hyper-empathizing hyperconsumption, hyper-status seeking, hypergamy and instability instead.

    Women evolved all these ‘hyper-traits’ to extend her emotions and nervous system over a passel of fragile offspring, just as men developed hyperphysical, mechanical, and political traits for organizing a non-fragile polity for the benefit of women and children.

    Men have no need for status and responsibility without responsibility for women and children.

    Women demand irresponsibility, hyperattention, and hyperconsumption, hyper status, and hypergamy UNLESS they are responsible for children.

    The sexes, always and everywhere are mirror images of one another. Always and everywhere.

    All human differences in biases and preferences originate in sex differences in sensation, perception, prediction, valuation, cognition, and intersocial relation.

    The differences in male female brains are well understood despite postwear pseudoscientific suppression by the activist left.

    Feminine prey bias, empathizing in time, seeking competition by accumulating attention, redistribution, conducting offense by gossiping rallying saming and undermining, and seeking status through evasion of responsibility for commons, accumulating resources of others, displaying hyperconsumption, and hypergamy.
    -vs-
    Masculine predator bias, systmatizing over time, seeking competition by accumulating skills, allies, influence and resources, conducting offense by demonstration of competency in physical, political, or conceptual achievement, gaining status by responsibility for commons.

    Humans domesticated one another. The singular direction of human evolution over the past 130k years is just neoteny: domestication syndrome that trades lowering aggression for extending development, producing increasing self regulation and resulting opportunity for cooperation.

    Otherwise we’re still the great ape underneath.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1657098328708898842

  • CONSERVATIVES AREN’T STUPID One more bit. Oppression narratives are the cognitiv

    CONSERVATIVES AREN’T STUPID
    One more bit. Oppression narratives are the cognitively female and liberal version of cognitively male and conservative conspiracy narratives.

    This sex difference in cognitive biases originates in sex differences in status seeking. Females seek status by evasion of responsibility and hyperconsumption, while males seek status by accumulatino of responsibilty and captialization.

    So, the difference as in all things left vs right, is that we take male antisocial nonsense seriously because males are dangerous, and we ignore female antisocial nonsense because women aren’t dangerous.

    At least, women weren’t dangerous until given the franchise. Now the opposite is true, and the present age is caused by the noise as the signal of women’s influence in politics travels through the civilizations institutional, traditional, normative, habitual, and cognitive capital structures.

    This particular problem (which I can’t fully determine whether is cultural or biological) has allowed the industrialization of the female method of antisocial behavior using oppression narratives to take root in a population whose education, consumption, and voting is dominated by white females. (white females are the only group that defects from their ethnicity.

    We endured marxism as we brought the lower classes into the franchise – a search for control. Now we’re enduring feminism as we bring females in to the franchise – a search for contrrol.

    And unfortunately we’ve not falsified the female search for control as we have the lower class search for control.

    🙁

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-12 01:26:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656833069742006273

  • HOW DOES HOMOSEXUALITY PLAY INTO EVOLUTION? Ugh. I don’t really want to go into

    HOW DOES HOMOSEXUALITY PLAY INTO EVOLUTION?

    Ugh. I don’t really want to go into this subject even though I do understand the issue. But ‘pubic service calls’.

    So:

    In general, all humans develop probabilistically, starting with genes, but later dependent upon the environment in the womb.

    As such, humans are born within probabilistic limits that either cause miscarriage, or not – and not according to an optimum plan. In fact human adaptive variation requires variation between individuals.

    As such, we are all of us a mixture of female and male sex organ development AND the LATER cognitive emotional (brain) development by the division of feminine empathizing and male systematizing traits.

    So there is a developmental relation but not necessarily dependence upon the physical by the instinctual and personality traits.

    At present (a) homosexuality tends to run in families (b) it tends to occur after the first child (c) there may or may not be some environmental trigger that impedes development (d) women(females) are sexually plastic and men less so.

    So homosexuality is a birth (developmental) defect that isn’t severe enough to cause a miscarriage. The reason it doesn’t isn’t yet known, but is likely due to the late maturity of these cognitive and emotional processes vs the early development of the physical.

    A study of the differences between early and late births – even by so much as days – provides some fascinating insight into late stage development of the brain, emotions, personality, and yes, even handedness.

    It isn’t clear that in history – at least prior to agrarianism, that sex preference was relevant enough to reproduction to select against. It isn’t clear if it evolved during agrarianism. It isn’t clear if there is a viral, bacterial, chemical, immunological difference in modernity that is having some effect.

    I suspect we will know in the next thirty years. All that’s preventing it now is the willingness to perform the research.

    And I am fairly sure it will be detectable and possibly correctable in utero or post partum within the same period of time.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @OtonielFilho5 @bierlingm

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 19:55:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656749953920778243

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656745308078915587