Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • How Did They Exterminate You?

    Mar 8, 2020, 7:57 PM

    1. Entering women into the workforce, limiting reproduction.
    2. Consuming all their income with taxes, limiting reproduction.
    3. Placing the tax burden on the middle class,Limiting reproduction.
    4. Exacerbating home prices through long term loans, limiting reproduction.
    5. Exacerbating income demands with college educations that teach nothing other than indoctrination, limiting reproduction.
    6. Fostering easy high interests credit and subsequent debt, limiting reproduction.
    7. Changing from family first policy to individual first policy.
    8. While redistributing income, government services, and tax policy to the underclasses with low quality genes with low investment parenting,
    9. Causing economic, social, cultural, and institutional decline.
    10. Then immigrating vast numbers of the underclass that europe spent millenia eliminating through harsh winters, plagues, wars, prohibition on cousin marriage, manorialism restricting access to land, and aggressive hanging of malcontents.

  • Advanced P-Testimonialism

    Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony. In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements: “How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational. And we answer that question. ANDREW: For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system. For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy: 1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories) 2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification) 3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it. Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity. Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated. P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech. ERIC DANELAW Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality). Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic. ANDREW M GILMOUR One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method. To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic) What was the reasoning behind this? ERIC DANELAW Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem. example ANDREW M GILMOUR Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate. That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought? ERIC DANELAW Not sure which question your asking. 1-the order is in ascending information (complexity) 2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe 3-There are sets of related tests (see image above) … not-illogical, … not-impossible, … not-immoral, … not-incomplete, … not-unwarrantied. 4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example) 5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three. 6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job. I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer. In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception. I think that’s it. One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit. So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’. I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’. And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa) So: Presumption of lack of agency. Presumption of deceit Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence. Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent. Make sense?

  • Advanced P-Testimonialism

    Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony. In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements: “How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational. And we answer that question. ANDREW: For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system. For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy: 1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories) 2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification) 3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it. Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity. Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated. P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech. ERIC DANELAW Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality). Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic. ANDREW M GILMOUR One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method. To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic) What was the reasoning behind this? ERIC DANELAW Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem. example ANDREW M GILMOUR Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate. That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought? ERIC DANELAW Not sure which question your asking. 1-the order is in ascending information (complexity) 2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe 3-There are sets of related tests (see image above) … not-illogical, … not-impossible, … not-immoral, … not-incomplete, … not-unwarrantied. 4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example) 5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three. 6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job. I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer. In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception. I think that’s it. One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit. So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’. I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’. And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa) So: Presumption of lack of agency. Presumption of deceit Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence. Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent. Make sense?

  • Self Domestication of Our Anti-Social Behaviors

    We spent thousands of years on the incremental suppression of male criminality using politics, our common law and the duel – even domesticating warfare by the westphalian peace, the geneva convention, the charter of human rights, and the evidence that neither russians nor americans would ever ‘press the button’ under mutually assured destruction. During the peak of our success, as a signal of our virtues, and the justness of our empires, we liberated Women and the Jews at roughly the same time, without awareness that the Jews are the world’s elites at the use of the female strategy of anti-social behavior – ascent by verbal undermining, social construction, free riding, and parasitism, that we call the abrahamic method of deceit. A technology that is a formal methodology of deceit and undermining by that seduction we call ‘false promise and baiting into hazard’, and that is the mirror opposite to the western aristocratic, masculine, aristotelian truth, testimony, reciprocity, and meritocracy. And we were vulnerable because of our tradition of sovereignty, reciprocity, and truth regardless of cost – whis is the only reason women were ‘free’ in western civilization despite their lack of masculine loyalty, and their bias in favor of consumption, hypergamy, and status, regardless of cost. So the lesson of this century is that we must either withdraw the enfranchisement and liberty of women and jews (and now muslims), or we must reform our warfare, reform our politics, increase our laws, restore our duels, so that we can suppress the anti-social behavior of women and the jews (and the muslims now), and return to our Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Markets, Meritocracy, and Class Harmony at the cost of the reproduction of the lower classes, and the direction of surpluses to the production of high-returns commons. And we must separate, or conquer to do so. Because the end result of the female strategy is always and everywhere decline and conquest by others.  

  • The Rest of The World Can’t Comprehend the West’s ‘game’

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:09 PM A universal militia, using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Markets, Rapid Adaptability, Meritocracy, and Class Harmony at the cost of the reproduction of the lower classes, and the direction of surpluses to the production of high-returns commons, has no ‘authority’ other than the law of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty and markets in everything. So we must solve all problems by creating rules (laws) that apply to all equally. Western civilization requires we solve problems with rules of the game, NOT COMMANDS. The rules preserve the west’s strategy of adaptive velocity using sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, jury and markets in everything with constantly rotating natural aristocracy(military), nobility (commercial), and priesthood(public intellectuals). So, to everyone else in the world, solving problems is easy, because they think in terms of commands not game rules. And because they choose the ‘easy way’ they stagnate. It’s a lower risk for them. They pay the cost of stagnation, in exchange for the ease of administration and adoption of norms. But this difference is greater than the difference between western truth before face, and asiant face before truth, or asian harmony and western adversarialism, or asian emphasis on verbs and composition and western emphasis on nouns and shapes. It is literally inconceivable to the semitic peoples (and even to our own western women) that the secret of our success is the high cost of norms and institutions of ‘continuous recursive adaptation to circumstance’ – we are not always first, but we are always fastest. And evolution cares about fastest.

  • The Rest of The World Can’t Comprehend the West’s ‘game’

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:09 PM A universal militia, using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Markets, Rapid Adaptability, Meritocracy, and Class Harmony at the cost of the reproduction of the lower classes, and the direction of surpluses to the production of high-returns commons, has no ‘authority’ other than the law of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty and markets in everything. So we must solve all problems by creating rules (laws) that apply to all equally. Western civilization requires we solve problems with rules of the game, NOT COMMANDS. The rules preserve the west’s strategy of adaptive velocity using sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, jury and markets in everything with constantly rotating natural aristocracy(military), nobility (commercial), and priesthood(public intellectuals). So, to everyone else in the world, solving problems is easy, because they think in terms of commands not game rules. And because they choose the ‘easy way’ they stagnate. It’s a lower risk for them. They pay the cost of stagnation, in exchange for the ease of administration and adoption of norms. But this difference is greater than the difference between western truth before face, and asiant face before truth, or asian harmony and western adversarialism, or asian emphasis on verbs and composition and western emphasis on nouns and shapes. It is literally inconceivable to the semitic peoples (and even to our own western women) that the secret of our success is the high cost of norms and institutions of ‘continuous recursive adaptation to circumstance’ – we are not always first, but we are always fastest. And evolution cares about fastest.

  • I Don”t Want You to Stop Veneration for Jesus – I Want You to Reform

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:18 PM I DON”T WANT YOU TO STOP VENERATION FOR JESUS – I WANT YOU TO REFORM Katherine Nixey: The Darkening Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkening_Age Christians were the social justice warriors, revisionist historians, victim narrative producers, anti-whites, sophists, science denialists, and communists of the ancient world. Which is why they assist the muslims and jews in the destruction of the modern world, with another era of universalism. The orthodox on one hand have preserved a ritualistic religion. The evangelicals have almost converted it into a folk religion. But “Churchianity” imposed by force by the byzantines upon the west, is no different from postwar jews imposing marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and human biology denialism upon the west once again, and incrementally using activism to undermine from within. The current fall is just christianity version two. (My instinct is that Christianity cannot survive without military service to provide the masculinity to the men. Paganism is nationalistic, or at civilizational, and militaristic. as well as providing debt recognition to ancestors.) Edit

  • I Don”t Want You to Stop Veneration for Jesus – I Want You to Reform

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:18 PM I DON”T WANT YOU TO STOP VENERATION FOR JESUS – I WANT YOU TO REFORM Katherine Nixey: The Darkening Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkening_Age Christians were the social justice warriors, revisionist historians, victim narrative producers, anti-whites, sophists, science denialists, and communists of the ancient world. Which is why they assist the muslims and jews in the destruction of the modern world, with another era of universalism. The orthodox on one hand have preserved a ritualistic religion. The evangelicals have almost converted it into a folk religion. But “Churchianity” imposed by force by the byzantines upon the west, is no different from postwar jews imposing marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and human biology denialism upon the west once again, and incrementally using activism to undermine from within. The current fall is just christianity version two. (My instinct is that Christianity cannot survive without military service to provide the masculinity to the men. Paganism is nationalistic, or at civilizational, and militaristic. as well as providing debt recognition to ancestors.) Edit

  • In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste?

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:28 PM

    —“I think an interesting idea as a prerequisite to being able to take someone to court for a violation of reciprocity under P-law would be the requirement that they show up to court “in propria persona” or “pro se,” or more succinctly, no more attorneys. Don’t kill them as Shakespeare suggested, just make it unlawful for them to show up in court except to represent themselves and their own interests.”—

    (good). Or go the other way: use the british method of a barrister, which won’t take a case from solicitor(lawyer) unless it has merit. So in the british model they have, in our terms, professional prosecutors for both sides. In america we have a lot of lawyers and a few prosecutors. It’s more ‘common law’ to take your route. It requires more judges with more skill but yes it will work. I’m not settled on the more adversarial american, or the less dishonest british. What I like about your position is that it’s cheap. What I like about their position is that it’s expensive. I think the judge-judy shows of the world illustrate how ignorant the public is of their own wrong doing. So it depends on whose time we want to waste on idiots: their own money with lawyers, or our money with the court’s.

  • In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste?

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:28 PM

    —“I think an interesting idea as a prerequisite to being able to take someone to court for a violation of reciprocity under P-law would be the requirement that they show up to court “in propria persona” or “pro se,” or more succinctly, no more attorneys. Don’t kill them as Shakespeare suggested, just make it unlawful for them to show up in court except to represent themselves and their own interests.”—

    (good). Or go the other way: use the british method of a barrister, which won’t take a case from solicitor(lawyer) unless it has merit. So in the british model they have, in our terms, professional prosecutors for both sides. In america we have a lot of lawyers and a few prosecutors. It’s more ‘common law’ to take your route. It requires more judges with more skill but yes it will work. I’m not settled on the more adversarial american, or the less dishonest british. What I like about your position is that it’s cheap. What I like about their position is that it’s expensive. I think the judge-judy shows of the world illustrate how ignorant the public is of their own wrong doing. So it depends on whose time we want to waste on idiots: their own money with lawyers, or our money with the court’s.