Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein’s Theory

    He demonstrates why geometry must remain the basis for mathematics, else it becomes ordinary language with all it’s faults – long standing complaint – and primary pre-war concern of mathematicians who were concerned by the restoration of mysticism in mathematics by empty verbalisms like ‘multiple infinities’ vs ‘pairing off at different rates’. This restoration of mysticism (Cantor, Bohr, and to some degree Keynes) reversed the restoration of mathematics to geometry by Descartes. He does a great job of demonstrating anchoring in any academic endeavor. And that some scientific half-solutions are sources of ignorance. And that generations of malinvested academics have to die off before their sources of ignorance can be overcome. His interjection with illustrations are a romantic cultural indulgence that distracts from his argument. He missed the point on Hilbert – that Einstein created an obstacle by half-finishing the theory and hilbert wouldn’t have. His logic is elegant, interesting, and thorough. And easier to follow than I expected. He does not make the transition from point-geometry to shape geometry. He does not make the connection between the problem of protein folding and the problem of particles producing waves. He identifies an avenue for investigation but he does not get to the point where he grasps that the reason his theory is correct but limited is that the information is insufficient to deduce from the top down or competition between formulae because we cannot measure. And so he doesn’t get to the point of working with primitives (operations) to produce wave forms (aggregates). So he doesn’t get to the point where math might be the wrong tool per se, and that simulations are necessary – by trial and error – to produce the underlying geometry. It’s not obvious that the sub-quantum (statistical) would logically operate by the same rules as chemistry and bio chemistry, molecular biology, and genetics etc – by an operational grammar. So, my suspicion is that “You can’t get there from here”. There is no means of anticipating the grammar (referent, logic, operations, transformations). All we are left with is trial and error. (My sympathies since I had to work outside the academy as well – there is no way to put a dissertation committee together for my work either.) — Curt Doolittle

  • Compensating for The Dominance of Feminism in Education

    Apr 3, 2020, 11:23 AM Again. What do you think I was saying?

    “Game is cognitive behavioral therapy for infantilized males (at the expense of infantilized females, caused by the tendency of women to infantilize, because the infantile are easily manipulated by seduction across the infant-child-female-male spectrum, and this is why we must return to separating boys and girls in education, just as we must return to overlapping ‘one room school’, separated by ability, and even race given our differences in rates of maturity, emphasis on fitness, on competition, and the high cost of doing so.”

    In other words, I was being critical of ‘game’ as compensating for the dominance of feminism in education. You didn’t get the irony. And then you personalized it. And then you retaliated against it. Without seeking to understand it. To determine whether it was true regardless of whether it was desirable. Which is what women tend to do:

    1. NAXALT,
    2. Personalize,
    3. Conflate desirable with truth,
    4. use GSRRM to undermine the truth,
    5. use GSRRM to undermine the truth speaker,
    6. manipulate to circumvent the truth, and;
    7. encourage infantilism to preserve the ability to manipulate, 8. because women’s instincts are dysgenic because of the high cost of her offspring. And the monotheistic religions of the old world, and the pseudoscientific religions of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD Denialism are both means of satisfying women’s (and weak men’s) intuitions to preserve investments regardless of their merit, just as men’s intuitions are to preserve investments by the advancement of merit.

    Now, I don’t believe men and women have any control over these instincts – that is, until we learn to have agency. Men have had thousands of years to learn to develop institutions that force them to have agency, rather than engage in political and physical super-predation. But women have had less than a century to develop institutions that force them to have agency rather than engage in social and interpersonal super-predation. And the 20th century collapse of civilization has been made possible by the use of pseudoscience sophistry, denial and deceit to sell the false promise of escape from Darwin, Malthus, and the compromises between Genders and classes ameliorated by our use of the law of tort, truthful testimony, and the jury. Women live longer, are coddled by both men and women, Create 70% of college debt, but a minority of ‘real’ degrees, determine elections, consume 70% of government resources, but spend 70% of family income, are the target of 90%+ of advertising, determine what propaganda and media is produced, are privileged in divorce, demand economic privilege at every opportunity, where only white males between 30-50 are net tax contributors, die earlier, get lest medical investment, are more likely to suicide because of it. So if women are the vector for despotic political religion in the ancient world and despotic political pseudo-religion in the modern, and are responsible for immigration, taxation, the dismantlement of the constitution, and the civili society because their instincts are dysgenic, then what reforms are necessary to bring women into parity with men with equal suppression of their harmful instincts? I mean, talk about hyperconsumption. I mean, talk about consumption of civilizational capital. It’s not men doing it. It’s women. Who are totally unconscious of their selfishness. P-law eliminates the use of seduction to bait women (and weak men) into hazard by appeal to their intuitions in favor of dysgenia and decline (the instinct of the herd), because that was the primary criminal invention of the 20th century – a repeat of the jewish and christian invention of criminality in the first century – this time by sophism, pseudoscience, and denial, instead of the occult. So all of that was underneath the post. You just didn’t think it through. Because you leapt to your feelings. You didn’t demonstrate agency. And it is agency that separates human from animal. If men did the same we would be back in an era of continuous domestic violence. Instead we are in a period where men largely control their physical violence, and women do not control their social violence. I think things through. If you ever think I am wrong. Then either you don’t understand. Or the animal inside is talking so you can’t Not the human we seek to build on top of it.

  • Compensating for The Dominance of Feminism in Education

    Apr 3, 2020, 11:23 AM Again. What do you think I was saying?

    “Game is cognitive behavioral therapy for infantilized males (at the expense of infantilized females, caused by the tendency of women to infantilize, because the infantile are easily manipulated by seduction across the infant-child-female-male spectrum, and this is why we must return to separating boys and girls in education, just as we must return to overlapping ‘one room school’, separated by ability, and even race given our differences in rates of maturity, emphasis on fitness, on competition, and the high cost of doing so.”

    In other words, I was being critical of ‘game’ as compensating for the dominance of feminism in education. You didn’t get the irony. And then you personalized it. And then you retaliated against it. Without seeking to understand it. To determine whether it was true regardless of whether it was desirable. Which is what women tend to do:

    1. NAXALT,
    2. Personalize,
    3. Conflate desirable with truth,
    4. use GSRRM to undermine the truth,
    5. use GSRRM to undermine the truth speaker,
    6. manipulate to circumvent the truth, and;
    7. encourage infantilism to preserve the ability to manipulate, 8. because women’s instincts are dysgenic because of the high cost of her offspring. And the monotheistic religions of the old world, and the pseudoscientific religions of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD Denialism are both means of satisfying women’s (and weak men’s) intuitions to preserve investments regardless of their merit, just as men’s intuitions are to preserve investments by the advancement of merit.

    Now, I don’t believe men and women have any control over these instincts – that is, until we learn to have agency. Men have had thousands of years to learn to develop institutions that force them to have agency, rather than engage in political and physical super-predation. But women have had less than a century to develop institutions that force them to have agency rather than engage in social and interpersonal super-predation. And the 20th century collapse of civilization has been made possible by the use of pseudoscience sophistry, denial and deceit to sell the false promise of escape from Darwin, Malthus, and the compromises between Genders and classes ameliorated by our use of the law of tort, truthful testimony, and the jury. Women live longer, are coddled by both men and women, Create 70% of college debt, but a minority of ‘real’ degrees, determine elections, consume 70% of government resources, but spend 70% of family income, are the target of 90%+ of advertising, determine what propaganda and media is produced, are privileged in divorce, demand economic privilege at every opportunity, where only white males between 30-50 are net tax contributors, die earlier, get lest medical investment, are more likely to suicide because of it. So if women are the vector for despotic political religion in the ancient world and despotic political pseudo-religion in the modern, and are responsible for immigration, taxation, the dismantlement of the constitution, and the civili society because their instincts are dysgenic, then what reforms are necessary to bring women into parity with men with equal suppression of their harmful instincts? I mean, talk about hyperconsumption. I mean, talk about consumption of civilizational capital. It’s not men doing it. It’s women. Who are totally unconscious of their selfishness. P-law eliminates the use of seduction to bait women (and weak men) into hazard by appeal to their intuitions in favor of dysgenia and decline (the instinct of the herd), because that was the primary criminal invention of the 20th century – a repeat of the jewish and christian invention of criminality in the first century – this time by sophism, pseudoscience, and denial, instead of the occult. So all of that was underneath the post. You just didn’t think it through. Because you leapt to your feelings. You didn’t demonstrate agency. And it is agency that separates human from animal. If men did the same we would be back in an era of continuous domestic violence. Instead we are in a period where men largely control their physical violence, and women do not control their social violence. I think things through. If you ever think I am wrong. Then either you don’t understand. Or the animal inside is talking so you can’t Not the human we seek to build on top of it.

  • For Christian Propertarians

    Apr 5, 2020, 10:10 AM (from elsewhere) (pls move to christian propertarians group) (no anti-christian signaling pls) Great Questions. Thank you. It is difficult to transition between Theological, Philosophical, and Legal-Scientific thought. This is because the ‘tests’ (theological obedience, philosophical choice, and legal-scientific decidability in matters of conflict) in each system of thought vary from wisdom to choice to necessity. To think in terms of law and science means eliminating what is false and irreciprocal so only the true and reciprocal (good) remain. So while the theological attempts to sculpt with clay, the legal-scientific attempts to carve away stone. This difference between the positive and negative is a difficult transition for the faithful, just as the reverse is a difficult transition for the legal-scientific. The difference between spiritual (emotional, imaginary, and intuited) and material (intellectual, actionable, and observable) is well understood in the philosophical literature as the difference between experience and action. experience and observation overlap but the Positive information from Experience, and the Negative information from Action are not the same. There is more ‘felt’ with experience than is observed. Both Faith and Science depend upon this difference. Faith to say ‘there is more to life than the material”, and law-Science ‘there is means of settling conflict by the observable and material’. Lastly, there is a difference between P-law (the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality) and my opinion. I have opinion. The law consists of what amount to ‘proofs’ of decidability under tests of sovereignty reciprocity and proportionality. So don’t confuse the law with my opinion. —“Why doesn’t Propertarianism promote Christianity?”– That’s not true. Law doesn’t promote it prohibits. Science doesn’t promote it explains. We explain why jesus’ teachings were true and an innovation. We state it in scientific terms. Christianity is compatible with natural law, extends natural law, and contributes to high trust commercial society with middle class majority ethics. As such Propertarianism makes other religions illegal because they are not compatible with natural law and jesus’ extension of natural law. So we don’t necessarily promote christianity we prohibit competitors. We do not consider practicing heathen (love of nature and ancestors), pagan (love of heroes and archetypes), and christian (love of god) together as incompatible. We understand this as the evolution of religion from familial, to tribal to cultural to political – which is the evidence of the evolution of religion. There are three sets of laws that God has shown us with evidence of his hand. The laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the evolutionary law of transcendence. Fundamentalist (literalist) Christianity is not compatible with Laws of Nature (science), and because of this, incompatible with the evolutionary law of Transcendence. The laws of nature are evidence of god’s hand. So wherever religion is incompatible with God’s hand then the men who wrote that religion erred. I seek to solve the problem of the incompatibility of religion with the evidence of God’s hand. This leads one to the conclusion that the deists are right and jesus was right and the jews and muslims and church doctrinists were wrong – but wrong only because they were doing the best they could with the primitive knowledge of god’s hand they had at the time. The basics underlying christian faith (god, soul, jesus teachings, ten commandments as property rights, and devotion) are all compatible with the evidence of god’s hand, in one way or another. And that the doctrine does succeed in causing the faithful to behave in accordance with god’s hand. –“How does Propertarianism account for the dignity of the human person by virtue of their potential for relationship with God versus their potential for advancing civilization?”— We say it in scientific terms: if you demonstrate by your actions that you follow the evidence of god’s hand, and do not act counter to the evidence of gods hand then you are due dignity and respect – just as those who do not, do no deserve dignity and respect. However, your experience is not observable, only your actions. How you believe and feel is not observable and decidable by other than your actions. If you do not treat others as jesus would demand, then you are not christian regardless of what you feel and believe. There are many christians who use christianity as a means of doing nothing at all because others are not conforming to their demands. This is the ultimate selfishness, ultimate deceit, ultimately unchristian denial of jesus’s teaching, and ultimate heresy. These people are not christian. They are evil in christian garb. There are hundreds of christian sects and all that they share is some point on the spectrum between priority for the tyrannical god of the old testament semites that jesus tried to reform, and the loving god evident in jesus’ behavior and teaching. Your faith is in your mind. Your behavior exists and is observable. So in this sense, Propertarianism (God’s natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality) judges your actions because no law can judge your mind. —“1. I don’t think Christianity is argued in the same way as any other faiths (moral baiting), like I tried to say, it is the unique and unrepeatable Christian response to suffering and relationship that really converts and ‘saves souls’.”— As an example, the presumption that man’s soul needs saving is the creation of a false debt. You will live a better life, cause those around you to live a better life, by following the teachings of jesus, and thereby insulating yourself and others from the animal impulses within us all. If you do so you will save your soul from emotional suffering in this world and the next. To save yourself from physical suffering requires more than saving yourself from emotional suffering. That is where science, technology, and medicine provide what faith does not. —“2. Christianity civilized the West and not the other way around. I don’t understand the idea that early Christianity was another religion of warfare from within. Christianity was spread by its own blood, not the blood of others.”— Why did christianity(a jewish heresy) spread among europeans, rabbinical judaism among jews, and islam (a christian heresy) among arabs and non-europeans? Because of what these people were beforehand. It is simply not true that other than a tiny minority accepted christianity willingly. This is church mythos. In all cases it was imposed upon them by leaders who found political value in it, a useful tool for political control of people, and a literate administrative class in the priesthood to do so. even during the high middle ages the documentary record looks a lot like “political correctness” is practiced today: the common people gave lip service, the urban people went along, and the upper classes virtue signaled, with a minority of purists truly devoted to the faith just like today. Those who write write history. Fortunately we have a lot of documentation from outside of the church and the writings of these people are decidedly ‘medieval’, right up until the enlightenment. —“3. The Church was always meant to lead the state, not compete with it. Like I said, the latter was embedded in the former (even when it deviated from its philosophy in practice).”— The church was forcibly imposed on europe by the greeks after they defeated rome and reconquered it, closed the schools, killed or outcast the philosophers, and destroyed the arts, temples, literature, and knowledge of the greco-roman civilization. The purpose of the church was to prevent the restoration of roman (european) aristocracy. Some monks in the north, particularly ireland, worked to save what little knowledge remained in europe. Some middle easterners saved the work of some of the greeks and romans. Then destroyed the rest with the muslim conquest. The problem was that the church was far more corrupt than the state it sought to replace. So after the institution of the church we had the monastic movement to defend the people from the church, then the protestant reformation to defend people from the church. The renaissance reformation and scientific revolution to escape the corruption of the church. Jesus was a gift from god. He was the only christian. American Evangelical Protestantism the closest religion to the one Jesus imagined, and the church as a political institution the farthest thing from the one he would have imagined. So the church failed in the early medieval period. It failed in the igh medieval period. It was punished in the restoration of european civilzation. And in the 19th Century it failed again in response to discoveries of science. And it has been destroyed by the marxist-postmodernist-feminist revolution against both christianity and aristocracy. And it wasn’t until the middle of the 20th that protestant evangelicals finally cast off the corruption of the church, and returned christianity to a religion of the people, by the people, in imitation of jesus christ. I have seen evangelical preachers take christianity even closer to its roots by teaching christianity as an intuitive more emotional close relation to our ancient religion of stoicism, and our scientific understanding of cognitive behavioral therapy. My view of christianity is an attempt to use jesus teachings to create an institution of governance and oppression, where jesus was trying to lift poor ignorant people out of tribalism, so that they were not a permanent underclass taken advantage of by usurers and tyrants, by loving each other as the greatest resistance movement against tyranny whether familial, tribal, national, or imperial in human history. So I am personally hostile to ‘Church-ianity” but I consider myself a christian who seeks to follow the teachings of jesus christ: “Love thy neighbor”. I am not sure anything else is required. There are five principles buried in christian teaching. Every one of them is reducible to “love thy neighbor and thy conscience shall be free.” That’s it.

  • For Christian Propertarians

    Apr 5, 2020, 10:10 AM (from elsewhere) (pls move to christian propertarians group) (no anti-christian signaling pls) Great Questions. Thank you. It is difficult to transition between Theological, Philosophical, and Legal-Scientific thought. This is because the ‘tests’ (theological obedience, philosophical choice, and legal-scientific decidability in matters of conflict) in each system of thought vary from wisdom to choice to necessity. To think in terms of law and science means eliminating what is false and irreciprocal so only the true and reciprocal (good) remain. So while the theological attempts to sculpt with clay, the legal-scientific attempts to carve away stone. This difference between the positive and negative is a difficult transition for the faithful, just as the reverse is a difficult transition for the legal-scientific. The difference between spiritual (emotional, imaginary, and intuited) and material (intellectual, actionable, and observable) is well understood in the philosophical literature as the difference between experience and action. experience and observation overlap but the Positive information from Experience, and the Negative information from Action are not the same. There is more ‘felt’ with experience than is observed. Both Faith and Science depend upon this difference. Faith to say ‘there is more to life than the material”, and law-Science ‘there is means of settling conflict by the observable and material’. Lastly, there is a difference between P-law (the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality) and my opinion. I have opinion. The law consists of what amount to ‘proofs’ of decidability under tests of sovereignty reciprocity and proportionality. So don’t confuse the law with my opinion. —“Why doesn’t Propertarianism promote Christianity?”– That’s not true. Law doesn’t promote it prohibits. Science doesn’t promote it explains. We explain why jesus’ teachings were true and an innovation. We state it in scientific terms. Christianity is compatible with natural law, extends natural law, and contributes to high trust commercial society with middle class majority ethics. As such Propertarianism makes other religions illegal because they are not compatible with natural law and jesus’ extension of natural law. So we don’t necessarily promote christianity we prohibit competitors. We do not consider practicing heathen (love of nature and ancestors), pagan (love of heroes and archetypes), and christian (love of god) together as incompatible. We understand this as the evolution of religion from familial, to tribal to cultural to political – which is the evidence of the evolution of religion. There are three sets of laws that God has shown us with evidence of his hand. The laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the evolutionary law of transcendence. Fundamentalist (literalist) Christianity is not compatible with Laws of Nature (science), and because of this, incompatible with the evolutionary law of Transcendence. The laws of nature are evidence of god’s hand. So wherever religion is incompatible with God’s hand then the men who wrote that religion erred. I seek to solve the problem of the incompatibility of religion with the evidence of God’s hand. This leads one to the conclusion that the deists are right and jesus was right and the jews and muslims and church doctrinists were wrong – but wrong only because they were doing the best they could with the primitive knowledge of god’s hand they had at the time. The basics underlying christian faith (god, soul, jesus teachings, ten commandments as property rights, and devotion) are all compatible with the evidence of god’s hand, in one way or another. And that the doctrine does succeed in causing the faithful to behave in accordance with god’s hand. –“How does Propertarianism account for the dignity of the human person by virtue of their potential for relationship with God versus their potential for advancing civilization?”— We say it in scientific terms: if you demonstrate by your actions that you follow the evidence of god’s hand, and do not act counter to the evidence of gods hand then you are due dignity and respect – just as those who do not, do no deserve dignity and respect. However, your experience is not observable, only your actions. How you believe and feel is not observable and decidable by other than your actions. If you do not treat others as jesus would demand, then you are not christian regardless of what you feel and believe. There are many christians who use christianity as a means of doing nothing at all because others are not conforming to their demands. This is the ultimate selfishness, ultimate deceit, ultimately unchristian denial of jesus’s teaching, and ultimate heresy. These people are not christian. They are evil in christian garb. There are hundreds of christian sects and all that they share is some point on the spectrum between priority for the tyrannical god of the old testament semites that jesus tried to reform, and the loving god evident in jesus’ behavior and teaching. Your faith is in your mind. Your behavior exists and is observable. So in this sense, Propertarianism (God’s natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality) judges your actions because no law can judge your mind. —“1. I don’t think Christianity is argued in the same way as any other faiths (moral baiting), like I tried to say, it is the unique and unrepeatable Christian response to suffering and relationship that really converts and ‘saves souls’.”— As an example, the presumption that man’s soul needs saving is the creation of a false debt. You will live a better life, cause those around you to live a better life, by following the teachings of jesus, and thereby insulating yourself and others from the animal impulses within us all. If you do so you will save your soul from emotional suffering in this world and the next. To save yourself from physical suffering requires more than saving yourself from emotional suffering. That is where science, technology, and medicine provide what faith does not. —“2. Christianity civilized the West and not the other way around. I don’t understand the idea that early Christianity was another religion of warfare from within. Christianity was spread by its own blood, not the blood of others.”— Why did christianity(a jewish heresy) spread among europeans, rabbinical judaism among jews, and islam (a christian heresy) among arabs and non-europeans? Because of what these people were beforehand. It is simply not true that other than a tiny minority accepted christianity willingly. This is church mythos. In all cases it was imposed upon them by leaders who found political value in it, a useful tool for political control of people, and a literate administrative class in the priesthood to do so. even during the high middle ages the documentary record looks a lot like “political correctness” is practiced today: the common people gave lip service, the urban people went along, and the upper classes virtue signaled, with a minority of purists truly devoted to the faith just like today. Those who write write history. Fortunately we have a lot of documentation from outside of the church and the writings of these people are decidedly ‘medieval’, right up until the enlightenment. —“3. The Church was always meant to lead the state, not compete with it. Like I said, the latter was embedded in the former (even when it deviated from its philosophy in practice).”— The church was forcibly imposed on europe by the greeks after they defeated rome and reconquered it, closed the schools, killed or outcast the philosophers, and destroyed the arts, temples, literature, and knowledge of the greco-roman civilization. The purpose of the church was to prevent the restoration of roman (european) aristocracy. Some monks in the north, particularly ireland, worked to save what little knowledge remained in europe. Some middle easterners saved the work of some of the greeks and romans. Then destroyed the rest with the muslim conquest. The problem was that the church was far more corrupt than the state it sought to replace. So after the institution of the church we had the monastic movement to defend the people from the church, then the protestant reformation to defend people from the church. The renaissance reformation and scientific revolution to escape the corruption of the church. Jesus was a gift from god. He was the only christian. American Evangelical Protestantism the closest religion to the one Jesus imagined, and the church as a political institution the farthest thing from the one he would have imagined. So the church failed in the early medieval period. It failed in the igh medieval period. It was punished in the restoration of european civilzation. And in the 19th Century it failed again in response to discoveries of science. And it has been destroyed by the marxist-postmodernist-feminist revolution against both christianity and aristocracy. And it wasn’t until the middle of the 20th that protestant evangelicals finally cast off the corruption of the church, and returned christianity to a religion of the people, by the people, in imitation of jesus christ. I have seen evangelical preachers take christianity even closer to its roots by teaching christianity as an intuitive more emotional close relation to our ancient religion of stoicism, and our scientific understanding of cognitive behavioral therapy. My view of christianity is an attempt to use jesus teachings to create an institution of governance and oppression, where jesus was trying to lift poor ignorant people out of tribalism, so that they were not a permanent underclass taken advantage of by usurers and tyrants, by loving each other as the greatest resistance movement against tyranny whether familial, tribal, national, or imperial in human history. So I am personally hostile to ‘Church-ianity” but I consider myself a christian who seeks to follow the teachings of jesus christ: “Love thy neighbor”. I am not sure anything else is required. There are five principles buried in christian teaching. Every one of them is reducible to “love thy neighbor and thy conscience shall be free.” That’s it.

  • ‘Chaos Is a Ladder; but One No One Can Climb It for You

    Apr 13, 2020, 11:57 AM

    “Men: you’re failing to make the proper calculation. When trust is low a return to brotherhood is the only method of repair. It’s not that you’re not capable; You’re misinformed, unprepared, overwhelmed, misdirected, and undermined (and all that by design both systematic and biological)”— anon

    Men ought be positioned to calculate against possible retaliatory violence only, that is, “Will this get me or me and my family(loved ones) killed?” Why? Because that is EXACTLY what they are wired up for; this and this alone allows them to calculate for MAXIMAL risk; risk against the world is where we make ALL the value-added gains. The system has trained you to be risk averse. It has filled its ranks with feminine teachers, trainers, and influence and constructed environments that undermines agency in return for gifting parasites increased autonomy that further undermine group agency. It’s a feedback loop that leaves no one fed in the long run. This is NOT conspiratorial in nature. It’s deterministic. The conspiracy of elephants [read @[100041644869842:2048:Curt Doolittle] or @[15616116:2048:Robin Hanson] or @[412370063083:274:Robert Sapolsky] or @[108097232599996:274:Daniel Dennett]] Look, when you reward animal man, a reversion to animal form is what is gifted in return, and the more animal you are the shorter your time frames and the shorter your time frames the quicker the devolution. Why? Because short time preference favors rewards of primal circuitry. A reversion to the animal isn’t higher culture; yet you’ve been convinced that this is so. Your selfish hedonism is doing you in; as I’ve warned for years it would. You’re passing up the most serious of opportunity costs (the opportunity to pass intergenerational wealth down your genetic lines) because the systems that have trained you have blinded you to the future. As the future is a VERY long-time frame. However, it won’t be for you and your family if you don’t wisen up right quick. You ought not want to see this end for so many so swiftly. Your environment is largely delusion; one that blocks your vision and perception. It’s a trick, an illusion, a sleight-of-hand, a perceptual mirage that has you convinced the price for action is high. The price of action is LOW. It’s never ever in the history of ever been lower. It’s low for a single human; imagine how low it is if we actually act in unison. Right now, we’re being over-run by a bug, a virus, a being not sentient in nature and we’re losing. We’re losing it all: we’re losing our sanity, our liquidity, our safety, our agency, and worst of all our future stability. You do understand that the landscape favors those who can act and you’re being told to sit at home, yes? You do know that through non-action nothing is gained, right? A calculation so simple a child understands… but why do you demonstrate otherwise? Oh, that’s right you’re so worried your overloads at the media are riling you up that you’ve been lulled to sleep. They say “panic” and you don’t even prepare! What ought we expect from those that look for every reason not to do a goddamned thing? We don’t trust those who are necessary to trust in order to act as one to beat back threats that may do us all in. High-trust stems from military reporting; as those who were truthful on the battlefield are those who lived to breed, period. No delusions exist in the realm of violence. The delusion is that the realm of violence isn’t ever present and threatening equilibration every single moment. A brotherhood; men that can take each other at their word and understand who and who not to take command from. You do understand the only authority is gifted, yes? That those who command can ONLY do so because there are those that faithfully follow orders. How did this chain become hidden? Where did we lose trust in collective action? Get it back! Find it again! If it’s not in your area look further out; we’re all connected. Report in! Send a message telling those you trust you’re prepared for action (and don’t fucking lie if you’re not!). Those that look to mislead you have lead you exactly to where you’re at right now. All those authority figures you’ve trusted your entire life have lead you to this very moment. Global panic. Why trust a set of leaders that’d lead you into this mess. One that’s been foreseen by those you ought to have been listening to for decades! You are capable. You have the power to deny power. Remember “no, means no.”? Did you think that applied only in the realm of consent? Of course, you thought that, it’s the only realm many of you care to act in or think about. I know because I read the dating application data. You present humans are frivolous things; but as humans you can just choose to change. I can assure you that if you don’t choose to change you will be delivered a fate not of your choosing but of their design; you’ll fall to a system that cares nothing for you whilst you trusted it to protect you. I’m not sure about you, but being duped doesn’t sit well with me; it turns my fucking stomach. Wake up! That’s not an alarm those are screams and gunfire! The systems and institutions you trust (you actually don’t trust them; see the chart below) have led you here. And you still follow… You still allow them to steer you. And if you don’t, you allow those that have been steered by them for decades steer you, and that’s just as bad. And if not that, then it’s the inner animal you’re giving the green light to and it’ll get you killed as well because this isn’t nature you’re acting with-in it’s human nature and that’s proving much more deadly. If you work to re-establish the systems and institutions as they are/were, YOU are the enemy. As those systems have gotten everyone I know into a pickle; one they are scrambling to escape. But, the trap is so elaborate it’s going to take a collective effort not seen before to escape. And without that effort we’ll all fall prey. It’s happening NOW. Your global order delivered you this situation. So, upend it; it’s all upside-down (@[453071252107024:69:TSM: KNOH – The Upside(down)]) anyhow. Your previous actions have left you un-prepared; stop continuing to make the same mistakes. Those you have trusted have let you down, remove your trust by stripping them of authority. Never has an empire been so fragile. They delivered you this mess. Those that act as parasites upon human nature; those that manipulate the herd to extract from them as they flat-out steal from you (the productive and able). The top has allied with the bottom in systematic fashion; but the bottom cares not for the top in any real sense; they care about being taken care of because they CAN’T do it themselves. And AGAIN, this is all by design. I can make a promise; the men that re-order this landscape will teach those that struggle and suffer to strive; it’s what they do. They’ll care for you and train you, because it’s in their blood. To specialize and combine effort in a trusting fashion delivers riches beyond compare. Cooperation and coordination beat back low-trust selfish effort every single time. And if this ceases to be the case your landscapes aren’t pristine as such, they are hellscapes; and they are so because no matter your action you still reside in the pit of despair that is hell; a pit that only deepens. You can have order, created by a brotherhood of men, providing a landscape of sovereignty delivering maximal agency creating excellence, beauty, and heroism OR you can have chaos, created by a parasitic elite, providing a landscape of hedonistic choice delivering maximal entropy via atomization creating mediocrity, ugliness, and subservience. The choice is yours. You’ve been trained to accept the latter, but I’m imploring you to climb the ladder. h/t @[100017606988153:2048:Eric Danelaw] (for the chart)’  

  • ‘Chaos Is a Ladder; but One No One Can Climb It for You

    Apr 13, 2020, 11:57 AM

    “Men: you’re failing to make the proper calculation. When trust is low a return to brotherhood is the only method of repair. It’s not that you’re not capable; You’re misinformed, unprepared, overwhelmed, misdirected, and undermined (and all that by design both systematic and biological)”— anon

    Men ought be positioned to calculate against possible retaliatory violence only, that is, “Will this get me or me and my family(loved ones) killed?” Why? Because that is EXACTLY what they are wired up for; this and this alone allows them to calculate for MAXIMAL risk; risk against the world is where we make ALL the value-added gains. The system has trained you to be risk averse. It has filled its ranks with feminine teachers, trainers, and influence and constructed environments that undermines agency in return for gifting parasites increased autonomy that further undermine group agency. It’s a feedback loop that leaves no one fed in the long run. This is NOT conspiratorial in nature. It’s deterministic. The conspiracy of elephants [read @[100041644869842:2048:Curt Doolittle] or @[15616116:2048:Robin Hanson] or @[412370063083:274:Robert Sapolsky] or @[108097232599996:274:Daniel Dennett]] Look, when you reward animal man, a reversion to animal form is what is gifted in return, and the more animal you are the shorter your time frames and the shorter your time frames the quicker the devolution. Why? Because short time preference favors rewards of primal circuitry. A reversion to the animal isn’t higher culture; yet you’ve been convinced that this is so. Your selfish hedonism is doing you in; as I’ve warned for years it would. You’re passing up the most serious of opportunity costs (the opportunity to pass intergenerational wealth down your genetic lines) because the systems that have trained you have blinded you to the future. As the future is a VERY long-time frame. However, it won’t be for you and your family if you don’t wisen up right quick. You ought not want to see this end for so many so swiftly. Your environment is largely delusion; one that blocks your vision and perception. It’s a trick, an illusion, a sleight-of-hand, a perceptual mirage that has you convinced the price for action is high. The price of action is LOW. It’s never ever in the history of ever been lower. It’s low for a single human; imagine how low it is if we actually act in unison. Right now, we’re being over-run by a bug, a virus, a being not sentient in nature and we’re losing. We’re losing it all: we’re losing our sanity, our liquidity, our safety, our agency, and worst of all our future stability. You do understand that the landscape favors those who can act and you’re being told to sit at home, yes? You do know that through non-action nothing is gained, right? A calculation so simple a child understands… but why do you demonstrate otherwise? Oh, that’s right you’re so worried your overloads at the media are riling you up that you’ve been lulled to sleep. They say “panic” and you don’t even prepare! What ought we expect from those that look for every reason not to do a goddamned thing? We don’t trust those who are necessary to trust in order to act as one to beat back threats that may do us all in. High-trust stems from military reporting; as those who were truthful on the battlefield are those who lived to breed, period. No delusions exist in the realm of violence. The delusion is that the realm of violence isn’t ever present and threatening equilibration every single moment. A brotherhood; men that can take each other at their word and understand who and who not to take command from. You do understand the only authority is gifted, yes? That those who command can ONLY do so because there are those that faithfully follow orders. How did this chain become hidden? Where did we lose trust in collective action? Get it back! Find it again! If it’s not in your area look further out; we’re all connected. Report in! Send a message telling those you trust you’re prepared for action (and don’t fucking lie if you’re not!). Those that look to mislead you have lead you exactly to where you’re at right now. All those authority figures you’ve trusted your entire life have lead you to this very moment. Global panic. Why trust a set of leaders that’d lead you into this mess. One that’s been foreseen by those you ought to have been listening to for decades! You are capable. You have the power to deny power. Remember “no, means no.”? Did you think that applied only in the realm of consent? Of course, you thought that, it’s the only realm many of you care to act in or think about. I know because I read the dating application data. You present humans are frivolous things; but as humans you can just choose to change. I can assure you that if you don’t choose to change you will be delivered a fate not of your choosing but of their design; you’ll fall to a system that cares nothing for you whilst you trusted it to protect you. I’m not sure about you, but being duped doesn’t sit well with me; it turns my fucking stomach. Wake up! That’s not an alarm those are screams and gunfire! The systems and institutions you trust (you actually don’t trust them; see the chart below) have led you here. And you still follow… You still allow them to steer you. And if you don’t, you allow those that have been steered by them for decades steer you, and that’s just as bad. And if not that, then it’s the inner animal you’re giving the green light to and it’ll get you killed as well because this isn’t nature you’re acting with-in it’s human nature and that’s proving much more deadly. If you work to re-establish the systems and institutions as they are/were, YOU are the enemy. As those systems have gotten everyone I know into a pickle; one they are scrambling to escape. But, the trap is so elaborate it’s going to take a collective effort not seen before to escape. And without that effort we’ll all fall prey. It’s happening NOW. Your global order delivered you this situation. So, upend it; it’s all upside-down (@[453071252107024:69:TSM: KNOH – The Upside(down)]) anyhow. Your previous actions have left you un-prepared; stop continuing to make the same mistakes. Those you have trusted have let you down, remove your trust by stripping them of authority. Never has an empire been so fragile. They delivered you this mess. Those that act as parasites upon human nature; those that manipulate the herd to extract from them as they flat-out steal from you (the productive and able). The top has allied with the bottom in systematic fashion; but the bottom cares not for the top in any real sense; they care about being taken care of because they CAN’T do it themselves. And AGAIN, this is all by design. I can make a promise; the men that re-order this landscape will teach those that struggle and suffer to strive; it’s what they do. They’ll care for you and train you, because it’s in their blood. To specialize and combine effort in a trusting fashion delivers riches beyond compare. Cooperation and coordination beat back low-trust selfish effort every single time. And if this ceases to be the case your landscapes aren’t pristine as such, they are hellscapes; and they are so because no matter your action you still reside in the pit of despair that is hell; a pit that only deepens. You can have order, created by a brotherhood of men, providing a landscape of sovereignty delivering maximal agency creating excellence, beauty, and heroism OR you can have chaos, created by a parasitic elite, providing a landscape of hedonistic choice delivering maximal entropy via atomization creating mediocrity, ugliness, and subservience. The choice is yours. You’ve been trained to accept the latter, but I’m imploring you to climb the ladder. h/t @[100017606988153:2048:Eric Danelaw] (for the chart)’  

  • The Lesson of Comparative Civilizations

    Apr 15, 2020, 2:54 PM So, what is the lesson we learn from our study of history? That european peoples are able to evolve genetically, culturally, economically, technologically, faster than all other peoples because of our traditions of sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, excellence, heroism, rule of law and jury, and markets in all aspects of life, where the market for suppression of parasitism we call the law, and the market for reciprocity in the production of goods, services, and information, evolve as rapidly as possible, thereby advancing productive innovations in each others interests, and suppression innovations in parasitism against others interests, in exchange for softly suppresses the rates of reproduction of the underclasses, thereby allowing us to divert proceeds of our production to the commons and the higher returns for all from those commons, the most important of which are truth before face, trust, economic and innovative velocity, and the prosperity, joy, and peace of mind that results from it.

  • The Future of Marriage Will Return to Historical Norm – and That’s Not Monogamy

    Apr 15, 2020, 4:45 PM During most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources. Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom. In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost. Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children. Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree. We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial. Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity. But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly. It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense. === (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)

  • The Future of Marriage Will Return to Historical Norm – and That’s Not Monogamy

    Apr 15, 2020, 4:45 PM During most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources. Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom. In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost. Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children. Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree. We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial. Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity. But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly. It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense. === (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)