Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Constitution was designed as a political organization for an alliance of tra

    The Constitution was designed as a political organization for an alliance of traditional Germanic micro-states under traditional European natural law. The Bill of Rights was added to enumerate specific limitations on the state. But this enabled the lie: ‘Rights’ over Natural Law.

    Constitutional Rights were testable, and Natural Law was insufficiently articulated outside of Blackstone, Smith, Locke, and Hobbes. Like the common law, it was ASSUMED not stated. This opened the door to positive law (command) that violated Natural Law and the Common Law.

    Between the failure to articulate the natural law logic, and common law method, as the SCIENCE OF COOPERATION, then enumerating a subset of rights, then combining classical liberalism’s positive inspirations,with Jewish postwar Sophistry(Pilpul) Undermining(Critique), it ‘broke’.

    It’s entirely possible – because I’ve (we have) done it – to restore the constitution and reverse the incremental destruction of our civilization by a long stream of sophomoric and pseudoscientific attacks on our western SCIENTIFIC traditions of cooperation and government.

    And strategically speaking, it’s a very different thing to revolt – sue the state by a common law declaration of reformation or secession – in order to restore the constitution, and overthrow more than a century of pseudoscience sophistry and deceit, than any other justification.

    So if you want rebellion, violence, religious rule, authoritarian rule – you’re asking for ‘feels’ not ‘reals’. You’re as bad as the left and women. If you have a brain, and you want victory, you have to choose ‘reals’ over ‘feels’.

    The Law, defended by a court, sherrifs, militia and an army is the only interpersonal, social, political, economic, and strategic operating system that does not require the people to share the same abilities, intuitions, feelings, experience, knowledge, and skill.

    Law is the solution: always. Not because it is best. But because it is the only solution possible.

    But to make and enforce law, constitution, legislation, regulation, policy, and procedure a people need the POWER to do so. That power must come from a combination of the force necessary to replace an evil state, AND solutions that for the majority are preferable to status quo.

    So any revolution victory requires the satisfaction not of the extremes but of the center. The extremes will take action for ANY improvement, the center will simply not RESIST a substantial improvement.

    And we are able to provide a substantial improvement for the majority middle.

    Revolution Comes.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-07-22 14:03:54 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106624623188931024

  • Look. The right elites and thought leaders are spread across multiple camps, non

    Look. The right elites and thought leaders are spread across multiple camps, none of which have a solution to the onslaught of the second Abrahamic destruction of western civilization.

    So the right is leaderless bunch of disenfranchised laboring, working, lower-middle, and middle classes that are being exterminated just as deliberately as through war, murder, hanging, or gas chambering.

    I won’t list the failed leaders on the right: Religion. Philosophy, Ideological Authoritarianism. These are all cults for simpletons – which is why they were invented. To inspire simpletons.

    I’m kind of burned out on the right. I want to help the average guy. I want to help my people. But as long as there are ‘false prophets, false philosophers, false idealogues, and false populists’ it’s almost impossible to just do the only possible thing that will succeed, which is to present reforms that will be preferable to the civil war that’s brewing.

    I’ve got intellectual interests and business interests, and in those two aspects of life I don’t have to worry about mouth-breathing morons following false prophets, false philosophers, false ideologists, and false populists (the idiots you listen to).

    If there is anyone with an iq above room temperature that wants to save our civilization from the second Jewish (Abrahamic) destruction of the European empires then I’m willing to work with them. But until the average simpleton gives up on hearing inspiring words that are usless sedations and nothing more, then we can’t direct the simpletons to the hard work of reformatino and if necessay revolution that’s necessary to create a victory.

    Their egos are the problem. They don’t realize they’re children asking mommy and daddy to serve them, because they believe they’re good virtuous kids. Mommy and daddy elites are trying to make you go away. They aren’t trying to make you happy. They’re trying to kill you off.

    You bravado is just as bad as the chimps. And just as useless.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-07-19 20:01:20 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106609041735918232

  • THE PURPOSE OF A CLASS ACTION The purpose of a class action, in this case, is to

    THE PURPOSE OF A CLASS ACTION

    The purpose of a class action, in this case, is to to escalate to the supreme court to rule (legislate), force Congress to legislation, because the people have no recourse because the congress will not act.

    Whether the legal team makes the proper arguments or not is a question.

    The class action should prevail on any number of grounds least of which is that they’re common carriers, the most important of which is that they’re practical monopolies, and finally that cancel culture violates common law, that limits interference in family, work, and business.

    So again, whether this case is managed well or not the foundations are clearly ‘just’ in that they’re common carriers, with monopoly interests equal to MSFT, ATT, and the Stock Market, functioning as an unaccountable state within a state, violating (ancient) common (natural) law.

    We aren’t exactly living in an age where legal competence is plentiful, and even the federalist society bench is anti-intellectual. (A century of social pseudoscience, and sophistry under the flag of ‘positive law’).

    And yes I’m a minor legal theorist continuing the empirical (scientific) law project restored by Scalia, working on the reversal of positive (sophistic) law. And no you wouldn’t understand it – it’s difficult. And yes, cross-disciplinary Ph.D.’s are impossible in the academy, so I can’t get one and dont’ need to.

    Please read up on the replication crisis; academic siloing; the impossibility of creating a science, programming, economic, and legal dissertation committee especially when the output of a major theoretical work >10yrs: “You have to do that on your own.”

    Source date (UTC): 2021-07-08 18:01:46 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106546286179999248

  • WHY MEN MUST TRAIN THE LEFT The problem of our failure to adequately ‘train’ the

    WHY MEN MUST TRAIN THE LEFT

    The problem of our failure to adequately ‘train’ the left is that as cognitively female, they not only place greater weight on empathy and experience over fact and consequence, but they can’t control it, grasp why they should, and the thought of auditing intuition is terrifying.

    So imagine a not-so-smart person being told that they have to do multi-step mathematics on every thought in their head. That’s what a cognitively feminine person would have to do. The female mind does not self-audit for truth intuits fear of loss (neuroticism) and its evasion.

    The cognitively female mind does not think and then feel, they feel then try to explain to themselves why they feel that way.

    As such we should not question why the left rationalizes (lies) to avoid the laws of nature and natural selection.

    Why? The cognitively female mind ignores those problems MALES SOLVE so that they don’t have to.

    The same way the male mind ignores the challenges of motherhood.

    Evolution did not produce male and female minds to equally solve problems, but to divide the labor of solving problems and to ignore those problems we are unable to solve. It wasn’t complicated: Amplify spatial awareness/reduce empathy vs amplify empathy/reduce spatial awareness.

    Evolution (natural selection) uses really simple dumb processes to produce very complex outcomes. The cognitively female and cognitively male minds DIVIDE the labor of SPACE, TIME, AND POPULATION. The Female for Children+Supplies (Small) and Males For Polity + Resources (Big).

    Source date (UTC): 2021-07-07 14:21:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106539759681172202

  • The Role of The Spectrum of Intellectuals Due to the Capture of the Institutions

    Evidence is that: (a) The time necessary to understand any field remains constant at about one to three years. The time to develop unparalleled expertise in a field remains constant at six to nine years. This is a function of the ability of human beings to develop research discipline and to assimilate and integrate information. The cost of six to nine years is often prohibitive. But that six to nine years can be performed by those capable autodidactic learning (on their own) just as easily. The value of institutional knowledge is time reduction and insulation from errors by continuous adversarial competition from peers. (b) The cost of performing basic research in any field continues increasing such that institutional funding is often required to advance *basic* research. So the cost of understanding a field, and the cost of performing basic research in a field is substantially different (c) The need to fund basic research, the need to publish to prove the institution is ‘funding worthy’, has led to siloing (specialization) of disciplines such that cross-disciplinary synthesis (cross-disciplinary research) is not possible to perform. (I know, I tried). (d) The number of scientists producing meaningful increases in any of the fields is tiny. we can easily observe this from the citations. Meaning the vast number and percentage of PhD’s do not produce any meaningful innovation, nor contribution, but perform no other function than participating in educating the increase in the world population. (e) *Synthesis* of the results of basic research is gated by the institutional narrative (faith) within the institutions, (f) Ungated synthesis of research is performed outside the institutional setting because synthesis is gated in the institutional setting. (g) Thus synthesis is performed by public intellectuals (writers) outside the institutions, who are not limited by specialization, and the gated institutional narrative. Whether those people simply work on blogs, speeches, articles, or papers, or books. (h) That the institutions, under the gated institutional narrative, have produced little other than pseudoscience in the behavioral sciences (psychology, sociology, politics, law, and economics). (i) And that the liberal arts departments that traditionally taught the ‘synthesis ‘of our research in our civilization have all but prohibited any semblance of science in their synthesis – because they are the producers of the gated institutional narrative (‘religion’). That’s not an opinion. That’s what the evidence says. It is still possible to keep abreast of all basic research in all fields even if keeping abreast of all technological research and development is increasingly challenging. But once you’ve mastered two or three fields the patterns across them are obvious. As for Ph.D.’s I eat Ph.D.’s like pretzels and chips at a keg party. When my current project is a little more complete, I’m going to produce videos tearing apart individual public intellectuals who produce the volumes of popular pseudoscience in math, physics, genetics, cognitive science, economics, law, and geostrategy. That ought to keep me busy for the rest of my life. It could keep a dozen of us busy. Color me exasperated.  

  • The Role of The Spectrum of Intellectuals Due to the Capture of the Institutions

    Evidence is that: (a) The time necessary to understand any field remains constant at about one to three years. The time to develop unparalleled expertise in a field remains constant at six to nine years. This is a function of the ability of human beings to develop research discipline and to assimilate and integrate information. The cost of six to nine years is often prohibitive. But that six to nine years can be performed by those capable autodidactic learning (on their own) just as easily. The value of institutional knowledge is time reduction and insulation from errors by continuous adversarial competition from peers. (b) The cost of performing basic research in any field continues increasing such that institutional funding is often required to advance *basic* research. So the cost of understanding a field, and the cost of performing basic research in a field is substantially different (c) The need to fund basic research, the need to publish to prove the institution is ‘funding worthy’, has led to siloing (specialization) of disciplines such that cross-disciplinary synthesis (cross-disciplinary research) is not possible to perform. (I know, I tried). (d) The number of scientists producing meaningful increases in any of the fields is tiny. we can easily observe this from the citations. Meaning the vast number and percentage of PhD’s do not produce any meaningful innovation, nor contribution, but perform no other function than participating in educating the increase in the world population. (e) *Synthesis* of the results of basic research is gated by the institutional narrative (faith) within the institutions, (f) Ungated synthesis of research is performed outside the institutional setting because synthesis is gated in the institutional setting. (g) Thus synthesis is performed by public intellectuals (writers) outside the institutions, who are not limited by specialization, and the gated institutional narrative. Whether those people simply work on blogs, speeches, articles, or papers, or books. (h) That the institutions, under the gated institutional narrative, have produced little other than pseudoscience in the behavioral sciences (psychology, sociology, politics, law, and economics). (i) And that the liberal arts departments that traditionally taught the ‘synthesis ‘of our research in our civilization have all but prohibited any semblance of science in their synthesis – because they are the producers of the gated institutional narrative (‘religion’). That’s not an opinion. That’s what the evidence says. It is still possible to keep abreast of all basic research in all fields even if keeping abreast of all technological research and development is increasingly challenging. But once you’ve mastered two or three fields the patterns across them are obvious. As for Ph.D.’s I eat Ph.D.’s like pretzels and chips at a keg party. When my current project is a little more complete, I’m going to produce videos tearing apart individual public intellectuals who produce the volumes of popular pseudoscience in math, physics, genetics, cognitive science, economics, law, and geostrategy. That ought to keep me busy for the rest of my life. It could keep a dozen of us busy. Color me exasperated.  

  • THE LEFT’S SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DRAMA AS DISINFORMATION — “Curt, Isn’t there

    THE LEFT’S SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF DRAMA AS DISINFORMATION

    — “Curt, Isn’t there specific, disambiguated terminology to describe this kind of leftist / cathedral driven methodology of narrative control?” —

    Interesting thought.
    I know what they’re doing (attention seeking)
    and I know how they’re doing it (novelty in words vs descriptive words)
    and why they do it (suggestion of emotional loading),
    and I know it’s non-rational (it’s emotional excitement)
    and I know it’s non-rational because it’s parroted, and when people are asked they can’t provide rational coherent responses,
    and I know it’s never including directly criticizable appeals to action – just emotion;
    and I know it appeals to neuroticism and the prey response,
    and so cumulatively,
    we know it’s not really anything other than dramatization:
    ‘coercing infants with ‘loudness’ of emotional loading over content. I mean it’s what mothers do to children.
    So I understand what it is and where it comes from and why it works.
    But I dunno what we can do about it.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-06-28 15:06:26 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106488973679320463

  • Read “You Gentiles” and substitute Jew with Woman, and Gentile with Men and the

    Read “You Gentiles” and substitute Jew with Woman, and Gentile with Men and the entire argument will make sense and explain our differences. They are cognitively female. It should not surprise us that they war from within as do females. They need a host like women need hosts.

    Let me help you Maruice Samuel: Because we are men, and you are women. And that is why you cannot think and feel as we do, and why we cannot as you. This is why you, like women endure but do not innovate, and possess self-confidence but not self-determination: you are all female.

    GENERATIONS OF MAN: Gen1: Kho-San, Gen2: Modern Africans, Gen3: South Eurasians, Gen4: East Asians, Gen5: Europeans.

    We don’t know the direction of jewish evolution – whether they were more feminine to begin with(doesn’t appear so) or whether they adapted to their strategy (appears so).

    They retain south Eurasian (a) features, (b) clannishness, (c) aggression – and have evolved (d) female neuroticism and female social order.
    Should be achievable within eleven or twelve generations of inbreeding and strong selection.

    Both we and they: strong selection pressure.

    Well, Europeans have heavily selected for ANE and Steppe traits, and against Anatolian Neolithic Farmer and WHG traits. But that said we are still hybrids. That’s not the same as east Asians. They’re less hybridized, and they are a direct notenization of the earliest diaspora.

    The IE revolution created a different race from the South Eurasian, just as the South Eurasian a different race from the African. There is a pattern to that evolution. And it is to rate of adaptation. We are trusting and trustworthy because of loyalty. You are only devoted.

    Once you see it you can’t unsee it.
    They’re cognitively female.
    And worse, they provide evidence of how all women really think and feel.
    Which is why men have been responsibile for their sisters, wives and daughters throughout history.

    Your femininity brings the advantage of empathy, verbal acuity, workload, acquisitiveness(shopping-trading vs producing-engineering), with neuroticism, moral panic, pettiness status-seeking, hyperconsumption, hypergamy, need for control, and inability to scale organizations …

    … and perhaps most importantly intolerance of variation in friends, causing the demand for socal construction of alternate realities of hyperconformity.
    You have demonstrated for all mankind the fully mature female order. And in doing so demonstrated its non-viability w/o men.

    That is what separates us – an inescapable gulf – between the Jewish feminine devotion that will not bear costs of commons, and the European male loyalty that will bear the costs of the commons. In other words – you are selfish. And that is why you have failed w/o men.

    You don’t expect a dog not to act like a dog. It will disappoint you. You just train the dog AND yourself, so that you and the dog are mutually free of disappointment.

    Humans need training.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-06-26 14:34:58 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106477525304091079

  • YES WE CAN OUTLAW THE ENEMY’S METHOD AND USE THE GOVERNMENT AND COURT AND MILITI

    YES WE CAN OUTLAW THE ENEMY’S METHOD AND USE THE GOVERNMENT AND COURT AND MILITIA TO DESTROY THEM.

    Well, in simple terms, all entertainment contains metaphysics, contains a group strategy, and produces behavior by suggestion using imitation, sympathy, and empathy – just as does religion – as an extension of religion: mythos propagation.

    So? In law, it’s testable for SEDITION.

    So the enemy uses sedition by the industrialization of lying, because we do not defend our informational commons, from sedition and treason by hostile religions, that use suggestion rather than testimony that conforms to self-determination by sovereignty and reciprocity.

    So you see that once law is a science, and its formal logic has been articulated (P-Law) there are no longer any means of WARFARE against the institutions of cultural production other than testifiable, truthful reciprocal argument free of circumvention of human reason.

    So we need to limit truth, possibility, and want claims, in public, to the public, in matters public, to self determination, by sovereignty and reciprocity in display word and deed. This would cleanse the informational commons of falsehood, false promise, deceit, and fraud.

    Everyone wants to get away with their own petty crimes, but they don’t want others to get away with theirs. So yes there is a natural tendency from petty criminals to object to the incremental suppression of petty crimes. But the enemy religion is spread by petty crime.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-06-22 14:59:10 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/106454971247629994

  • The Culture by Culture War Against Anglo Restoration Of Empirical Law of Sovereigns.

    NOTES: (General Criticisms, not of Prof Toombs, but in general, of the 20th-century social pseudosciences including that of economics and law. The interesting question is why did we begin pseudosciences in parallel with darwin and why did we evolve so many pseudosciences in the postwar period? ) 1. “Correctly Describe How The Engine Works” = Circular Argument(sophistry). “Why do we need an engine at all?” = Science (Decidability). 2. Natural Law = Cooperation = Self Determination, Sovereignty, Reciprocity (Law) – within the limits of Proportionality (Legislation). That’s science. Everything else requires the starting point where were are not sovereign, but some degree of slave or serf. 3. Natural Law = Science = Rule of Law, where each of us is sovereign and where legislation consists in, and is limited to, contracts between sovereigns: where sovereignty are the commons equivalent of private-sector shareholders: investors by demonstrated behavior. 4. Positive Law = Sophistry = Rule by Men, where each of us is serf, and legislation consists of command by others who are sovereign. It’s not complicated. 5. Rule of Law where we are sovereign and have the right to self-determination… if we choose. Otherwise, we must be freemen, serfs, or ‘slaves’. It’s not an opinion. It’s simply a fact. Versus Rule by Man, absence of sovereignty, and reciprocity. 6. The violation of our history of a hierarchy of man, family, serfdom > MANOR LAW. Freeman > Common Law. Sovereign > Court Law. 7. So there exists an enlightenment demand for the security of Manor Law (serfdom) in conflict with the demand for common law (freemen) and court law (citizens). The enlightenment ‘one class of everyone’ is as ridiculous as the Marxist, and libertarian and liberal ‘one class of everyone’. We need three economies, and three sets of laws, in a hierarchy if we are to have a diverse population no longer pacified by centuries of northern European or east Asian Manorialism and Credit Service both of which suppressed the reproduction of those unfit for markets. 8. Failure to understand why the west evolves so much faster than the rest of mankind leads to failure to understand that our law was the cause of that rapid adaptation – because it fosters maximum calculation by trial and error of means of advancement. 9. The western law is the most hyper-adaptive because it has the lowest friction and the least abstraction. 10. FWIW: Raz, Kelsen, Dworkin, and Hart are not culturally European but from a subculture that relies on POSITIVE LAW: Rule by Judges (Kritarchy). Not rule of Law (sovereignty). Smith+Locke > {Blackstone + Jefferson + Adams et al) > (Hayek + Epstein) VERSUS: Hobbes > { Anglo: Austin + Bentham } > { Germans: Schmidt et al } > Jews { Raz, Kelsen, Hartt, Dworkin etc} … maybe the Russians are next in the sequence of continuing the empirical spread of anglo empiricism and the culture-by-culture attempt to justify authority instead … thus repeating with democracy the continuous war against the usurpation of the natural law (traditional, common, germanic) by kings. It’s no different today than in the past.