Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • People Chose Their Self Interest – One Created for Them to Choose, but Which Was Suicidal

    PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS SUICIDAL

    —“… so People figured out the game was a losing battle & decided to withdraw from society & their obligations to that society? So People have chosen an easier route, stop including those which make their lives harder… So we grow cold toward on another?”—Mak McDaddy @MakMcdaddy

    We don’t just go cold (a feminine concern), we go to war (a masculine concern). People chose to follow their interests, which were interests created deliberately by our enemies: undermine rule of law, trust, norms, traditions, and the intergenerational family as the central institution of society, b/c of its natural effect of limiting parasitism and dysgenia. The used Marxism to undermine compromise between the classes, Feminism to undermine compromise between genders, Postmodernism to undermine identities, families, traditions, eugenics, science, and truth itself – and outright denial (political correctness) to suppress debate. Progressivism = lying and undermining for the purpose of hyperconsumption, largely of virtue signals.

  • People Chose Their Self Interest – One Created for Them to Choose, but Which Was Suicidal

    PEOPLE CHOSE THEIR SELF INTEREST – ONE CREATED FOR THEM TO CHOOSE, BUT WHICH WAS SUICIDAL

    —“… so People figured out the game was a losing battle & decided to withdraw from society & their obligations to that society? So People have chosen an easier route, stop including those which make their lives harder… So we grow cold toward on another?”—Mak McDaddy @MakMcdaddy

    We don’t just go cold (a feminine concern), we go to war (a masculine concern). People chose to follow their interests, which were interests created deliberately by our enemies: undermine rule of law, trust, norms, traditions, and the intergenerational family as the central institution of society, b/c of its natural effect of limiting parasitism and dysgenia. The used Marxism to undermine compromise between the classes, Feminism to undermine compromise between genders, Postmodernism to undermine identities, families, traditions, eugenics, science, and truth itself – and outright denial (political correctness) to suppress debate. Progressivism = lying and undermining for the purpose of hyperconsumption, largely of virtue signals.

  • Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork

    RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK How much more evidence d’ y’all need. I’m very good at what I do. Because I use data, demographics, and incentives, not wishful thinking. The worm turns… By the pricking of my thumbs, this way Revolution Comes!!! Note from me: After the (to me, rather amusing) initial reaction from a (from what I can tell, relatively small) group of people furiously counter-signaling any talk of “civil war”, I said that they and their concerns would end up being irrelevant as the Overton window continued to move. Trump used the term “civil war” in a tweet. (Thinly veiled threat.) Ann Coulter recently tweeted “the country needs to split up.” She has been going full beast mode (even more than usual) recently regarding immigration, saying, “continued immigration (including legal immigration) means we lose everything.” Glenn Beck recently talked about civil war (I don’t know what he said, someone told me about it.) Michael Savage too. Rush Limbaugh getting close to parroting our talking points on immigration. Bill O’Reilly said if the Left wins an election, “all our freedoms will be gone”. Once you understand humanity to the extent Propertarianism explains, it’s not hard to predict the broad strokes. (A key insight is understanding why the left & large segments of humanity cannot be reasoned with.) Edit

  • Right on Schedule. Like Clockwork

    RIGHT ON SCHEDULE. LIKE CLOCKWORK How much more evidence d’ y’all need. I’m very good at what I do. Because I use data, demographics, and incentives, not wishful thinking. The worm turns… By the pricking of my thumbs, this way Revolution Comes!!! Note from me: After the (to me, rather amusing) initial reaction from a (from what I can tell, relatively small) group of people furiously counter-signaling any talk of “civil war”, I said that they and their concerns would end up being irrelevant as the Overton window continued to move. Trump used the term “civil war” in a tweet. (Thinly veiled threat.) Ann Coulter recently tweeted “the country needs to split up.” She has been going full beast mode (even more than usual) recently regarding immigration, saying, “continued immigration (including legal immigration) means we lose everything.” Glenn Beck recently talked about civil war (I don’t know what he said, someone told me about it.) Michael Savage too. Rush Limbaugh getting close to parroting our talking points on immigration. Bill O’Reilly said if the Left wins an election, “all our freedoms will be gone”. Once you understand humanity to the extent Propertarianism explains, it’s not hard to predict the broad strokes. (A key insight is understanding why the left & large segments of humanity cannot be reasoned with.) Edit

  • The only Test Is Demonstrated Behavior

    —“Values testing to become a citizen of P-topia?”—Andrew M Gilmour

    The Propertarian Institute We don’t need to do anything except create a law, and universal standing, that prosecutes falsehood and irreciprocity such that we create a market for the prosecution of those who do so. The only test is demonstrated behavior. Let em in. Crucify the violators. Until there are no violators. In other words, common law is permissive with heavy punishment in order to allow the greatest fastest adaptation to opportunity. Continental law is reculatory and restrictive, with limited punishments in order to limit conflicts at the expense of adaptation to opportunity. Other law codes only get worse from continanal on down.

  • What if Any People Have Not Resisted Our Truth Telling, Reciprocity, and Sovereignty?

    WHAT IF ANY PEOPLE HAVE NOT RESISTED OUR TRUTH TELLING, RECIPROCITY, AND SOVEREIGNTY? What Group, Nation, Civilization, Or Religion, has not done everything in its power to resist the British Empirical and Scientific revolution in epistemic, psychological, social, economic, and political social sciences? Everyone’s just fine with the logical and material: math, accounting, medicine, and technology that assists them in consumption, but everyone has resisted Individual Heroism, Testimonial Truth, Truth Before Face, Civic Duty, Civic Production of Commons, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law of Property and Tort, an Independent Judiciary, Markets in Everything, the Absolute Nuclear Family, and personal responsibility and accountability, and the eugenics that result from all of the above.. So every group has wanted to increase consumption, or seek power, but who has done anything other than fight against truth, reciprocity, meritocracy, a The church throughout our history; the monarchies until the 17th century; The French in the 18th century, the Marxists in the 19th century, The Jews last century, the jews and russians, and now the muslims this century, a repeat of the chinese totalitarian ambitions in this century, a repeat of the french totalitarian ambitions in europe this century. Everyone wants consumption. No one wants responsibility. Yet we made consumption possible because we took responsibility.

  • What if Any People Have Not Resisted Our Truth Telling, Reciprocity, and Sovereignty?

    WHAT IF ANY PEOPLE HAVE NOT RESISTED OUR TRUTH TELLING, RECIPROCITY, AND SOVEREIGNTY? What Group, Nation, Civilization, Or Religion, has not done everything in its power to resist the British Empirical and Scientific revolution in epistemic, psychological, social, economic, and political social sciences? Everyone’s just fine with the logical and material: math, accounting, medicine, and technology that assists them in consumption, but everyone has resisted Individual Heroism, Testimonial Truth, Truth Before Face, Civic Duty, Civic Production of Commons, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Rule of Law of Property and Tort, an Independent Judiciary, Markets in Everything, the Absolute Nuclear Family, and personal responsibility and accountability, and the eugenics that result from all of the above.. So every group has wanted to increase consumption, or seek power, but who has done anything other than fight against truth, reciprocity, meritocracy, a The church throughout our history; the monarchies until the 17th century; The French in the 18th century, the Marxists in the 19th century, The Jews last century, the jews and russians, and now the muslims this century, a repeat of the chinese totalitarian ambitions in this century, a repeat of the french totalitarian ambitions in europe this century. Everyone wants consumption. No one wants responsibility. Yet we made consumption possible because we took responsibility.

  • The Economics of Dating

    THE ECONOMICS OF DATING AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion. So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition. Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly. There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs. Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary. The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.

  • The Economics of Dating

    THE ECONOMICS OF DATING AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion. So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition. Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly. There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs. Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary. The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.

  • Teaching is a talent

    Teaching is a talent, with a tiny bit of craftsmanship. You can’t teach a talent. You’ve got the talent or you don’t. Too many don’t. Teaching consists almost entirely of the Grammars (means of comparing, reasoning, calculating with different smantics (terms) and operators (operations) in complete sentences (transactions),) and history (evidence, data). Answering synthetic questions when a teaching requires life experience, and knowledge of multiple grammars, and human history. Ergo, the only people suitable for answering questions are grandparents. The only defense against undermining intergenerational transfer of debt obligations (culture) is teachers who are grandparents. I wouldn’t let anyone teach anything above fourth grade that hadn’t had life experience in productive endeavors (no govt, ppl for ex.). Too much stupid out there. Too much ignorant out there. Too much GSRRM out there. THere is no reason we don’t teach mindfulness, ethics, the law, accounting, and micro economics, and social economy, history, and geogrpahy other than to undermine our civilizatoin by producing ignorant post-religoius