Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX As in all things there is no paradox, just an open que

    THERE IS NO FERMI PARADOX

    As in all things there is no paradox, just an open question, no paradoxes exist.

    One can falsify the fermi question. It is falsifiable.We have failed to falsify it.

    One cannot disprove, only fail to provide a proof of possibility in an axiomatic system like mathematics, and reality is a theoretic system, not axiomatic.

    At present it is falsifiable, un-falsified, and undecidable, and therefore all we can say is that “we don’t know yet”.

    The most obvious reasons are:

    1 – Technological (EMR is a primitive technology)

    2 – Differences are such that we would be of no trading (cooperative) value; interfering would only create a competitor; and it is too early for a colonization effort to have reached us given the recent development of EMR broadcasting.

    3 – Time and distance window of opportunity

    4 – We are in a calm location between arms, in a calm (dying) galaxy, and have had long enough period of growth to ‘bake’ in necessary conditions

    5 – I am concerned that the spinning liquid iron core of our planet that creates its defensive field is rarer than we imagine, and as such it is much harder for life to have time to bake. taken to the extreme, the question may be, now many planets can survive four to five billion years, in a safe rural area of a galaxy, in the habitable (water) zone, while maintaining a spinning liquid iron core?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 10:36:00 UTC

  • WOMEN EVOLVED to make use of the market for sovereignty, particularly sovereignt

    WOMEN EVOLVED to make use of the market for sovereignty, particularly sovereignty from males seeking to limit their choice of reproduction and limits to their consumption.

    Conversely, men in collections of brothers, evolved to kill off rival collections of brothers, in order to obtain their property and their females. And men evolved cooperation using tools to constrain alphas in order to redistribute access to females for sex, and care. (reproduction is not in male minds until property evolves)

    —“Women initiate more divorces because we’re more easily persuaded by the modern-day mantra of “Whatever makes you happy”. It is entirely due to our capacity to prioritise feelings over truth.’—Lisa Outhwaite

    Lisa is insightful. But i’ll clarify a bit that that women have always and everywhere been hypergamic, and men willing to kill more so over women than any other reason by orders of magnitude, which is the origin of our ‘pairing off’ prior to our institution of marriage. When we evolved a division of labor, specialized tools, equipment, and constructions, animal property, and territorial property, we evolved marriage, but the property division was a women and her children and a man and his assets – which is a necessary division of the means of survival.

    So in contemporary economic productivity, there is no cost to women’s exercise of disassociation, and there are, as she says above, many incentives from the feminist movement, the postmodernist movement, and the anti-white male, anti-western civilization movement, and women always conform to whatever higher status women conform to, no matter what those women conform to.

    I’ll state “Whatever Makes You Happy” scientifically: the organization of the female brain, it’s developmental differences in connectivity and size, and it’s bias in hormones to cause that differences (brains are grown), creates a far more numerous, for more intense, far more urgent, stimulation of independent networks creating far more demand for her attention, and attention that causes her to bear costs (effort) to maintain in stable state (control). This is a purely physical process she has ver little control over and evolution prohibited her from having control over. Men by contrast ‘use less of our brains’ which is better said as men’s brains evolved for the opposite function, and they are organized to “compartmentalize information” so that it is limited to the physical world and physical body, so that we will bear physical costs on behalf of one another, of women, and of children they raise.

    Between work on the constitution, work on completing religion, work on migrating to the mainstream, work on the institute, work on Michael’s collection of my essays, and not working on the main book I need to publish, I am trying to make time to finish the Foundations course, and the explanation of the brain and behavior in operational terms, so that we are no longer attribute to petty psychologizing that which is a physical difference instructions of our brains, that evolution discovered was necessary for us to rise to the top of the planetary food chain. Once that is done, we will see the relationship between the structure of the brain, operational language, testimonial speech, psychological acquisitionism, ethical and moral propertarianism, and social compatibilism, that is only optimized by extending the structure of the brain into our institutions: markets in everything.

    The brain evolved to function as a market for attention, with differences in the cost of attention, by region, module, and sub-organ, determining differences in costs of providing attention to that region, module, and sub-organ.

    Even this description describes compatibilism.

    I only do compatibilism, for the purpose of maximum quality of life while in pursuit of maximum eugenic evolution, with maximum speed, for the maximum achievement of mankind, in the shortest possible time, given the hostility of the planet and the universe to the development of intelligent life forms, that require long periods of stability and short periods of stress to incrementally evolve.

    In other words, I always and everywhere take a question to its last criteria of decidability using what we call in computer science ‘exhaustive search’.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 09:55:00 UTC

  • I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM While I understand the sentiment, and unders

    I DON”T DO MGTOW, I FIX THE PROBLEM

    While I understand the sentiment, and understand the need to restore masculinity, I don’t MGTOW – I only do truth, reciprocity, compatibilism, markets, and anti-feminism, anti-marxism, anti-postmodernism, and re-masculinization through restoration of bonding through competition and achievement, and re-militarization to preserve hierarchy in role, equality in value, self sacrifice for the common good.

    You do not see me in MGTOW circles. MGTOW is an expression of withdrawal, in the christian and buddhist models, not an expression of achievement or restoration. The movement exists because men feel they can only achieve individually improvement, instead collective improvement of in civic groups. This again was the product of feminism in eduction, both undermining male boding by competition, and male bonding by military conflict, and male bonding in commercial endeavors, and male bonding in civic improvement.

    MGTOW is the incorrect strategy. Instead it is restoration of male social orders that create male tribal spaces, leaving women to their nesting spaces. We must restore the destruction of male civc organizations by the feminists using the court system, to deprive men of the equivalent of the female brood and her gossip circle of friends.

    We must eliminate the dysgenia of the state incentives to redistribute disproportionate male contribution to state revenues, to disproportionate female consumption of state services, without reciprocal exchange. End common property, alimony, child support, and women must fund ‘women’s issues’ with their revenues. Just as men musts fund ‘mens issues’ with their revenues. Unless they exchange in trades.

    We must restore reciprocity and compatibility. And to do that we must threaten retribution and restitution, by equal and opposite means. Which is how I argue the return to compromise: “We can easily reverse asymmetric female benefit from asymmetric male contribution, so that male asymmetric contribution remains male asymmetric benefit. Or we can compromise and return to exchanges that is the very reason why western women had standing to abuse any asymmetric benefit.

    1. MGTOW to restore male self-care – reconstructive education and therapy.

    2. Teach Stoic Method, Masculine Aryan Virtues-Feminine Christian Values, Epicurean Means

    3. Restore voluntary association and disassociation in law.

    4. Restore men’s sport, military, trade, commercial, and civilc organizations.

    5. De-Financialize the economy, and end consumer interest, to restore working and middle class reproduction, and restore rates of reproduction.

    6. Restore the “church” under secular, traditional, christian-feminine, and pagan-masculine options instead of the academy-state as the central organ of education, family, and family finance, creating the most advanced system of family support ever existing in human history.

    7. Reform academy by limiting it to the teaching of courses in calculative and operationally constructible methods; cause all colleges and universities to warranty their services; cause all colleges and universities to carry any and all student debt – payable within six years; restore the division of grades 8+ to trades, clerical, managerial, professional, entrepreneurial, financial, and scientific specialization. And have children in education overlap ages in this classroom to compensate for different rates of development, or separate into classrooms again by degree of development that masks the fact that the principle difference between us is the tradeoff between rate of physical maturity and rate of leaning increasingly complex content.(and ending stigmas that wrongly stick thru life). Yes we are all in the end different in cognitive complexity we are not different in achievement within our degree of cognitive complexity. This is the issue. We can learn conscientiousness to some degree even if we cannot learn to learn complexity faster.

    8. Restore all production of commons to the sphere of influence and responsibility over the commons, but limiting the federal to it’s functions, state and city-state to its functions, county to its functions, locality to its functions, neighborhood to its functions, and family to its functions and individual to his functions.

    This will restore mutual consideration and care, the civic society only europeans developed, and the high trust civilization upon which all of our privileges both western and across all mankind derived.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 09:09:00 UTC

  • HOW WILL P-LAW ON TRUTHFUL AND RECIPROCAL PUBLIC SPEECH AFFECT ME, AND OUR LIVES

    HOW WILL P-LAW ON TRUTHFUL AND RECIPROCAL PUBLIC SPEECH AFFECT ME, AND OUR LIVES?

    We’re decreasing tolerance for, and extending the liability for, the truthfulness and reciprocity we already enforce in contracts, selling, marketing and advertising, to all speech in public to the public, on matters of the public, making it impossible for anyone, including you, marketers, professors, intellectuals, media, and politicians, say anything they can’t testify to in court, because it is testifiable, and reciprocal. Meaning you must limit your public speech in public, to the public in matters public, especially for persona, economic or political gains, to what you can demonstrate you know enough to testify to, and that you can demonstrate you are not advocating, encouraging, or causing, the imposition of costs upon others without their fully informed, voluntary exchange. The only objection you can have is if you want engage in false and or irreciprocal speech. This means we will restore libel, slander, harmful gossip (undermining), psychologizing and moralizing (undermining instead of explaining the rational incentives of the people involved), suggestion(implying but not stating), obscurantism (hiding the truth), all left attempts at using the government to take rather than exchange between us, and all left attempts at lying about humans, our psychological, social, economic, and political orders. In other words, it will restore our informational commons to only that which one warrants is not false and not hurtful or harmful, or you will pay the price as if you did so in court. This means you can say whatever you want as long as it’s a constructive, a compromise exchange, helpful, and true. It means you cant say anything that’s destructive, encouraging conspiracy, harmful, and false. Yes the government, the media, advertising, marketing, public intellectuals, professors and teachers can no longer say comforting false things, and that your protection as a consumer made every single person in a company responsible for telling the truth and doing the reciprocal, ethical, moral thing, or they are open to prosecution. Yes it means that there will be a flurry of court cases as we build up a body of law for the many new conditions the law must cover, but this is what we do all the time, and we are very, very good at it. And it is very hard to be found guilty if you have in fact been careful with your words. And of course, no one cares about petty individual slip ups. We all make them. It is however different when it’s in the media, or from a public intellectual or politician attempting to inform the public or frame public discourse.. I suspect a rapid decline in news and a rapid shift in what remains, and that twitter and Facebook will have very serious problems if they are publishers, and as such will shift to platforms. And very quickly we will go back to a much less politicized, much more peaceful, much more prosocial civilization.”

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 19:03:00 UTC

  • (contemplating the biases of indians who participate in our debates.) I think I

    (contemplating the biases of indians who participate in our debates.)

    I think I understand the frustrations I have with indian’s who try to participate in these conversations, whether educated in india or the states. First of all, i do appreciate the rather odd optimism free of evidence endemic in indian culture. it’s what i admire. But, in india, or in an iimmigrant indian family, or in an indian immigrant community, those with first generation educations have the “doctor problem”, or the ’60’s kid problem’ meaning that when you are surrounded by generations people drastically different in educational knowledge and subsequent ability you overestimate your knowledge and ability, and when you come to America you are ‘educated’ in our academy that markets to that demographic, and sells sociological psychological nonsense in order to preserve income from that demographic – by not ‘correcting’ you and ‘insulting’ you by doing so. This is why our academy is ridiculous now. At least European Americans are educated by habituation in the long history, culture, and information flow of eastern civlization, and our optimism is in our ability to work hard and not be blamed if we fail for our heroic efforts. Or we are optimistic (badly) in our estimations of people from other cultures because we do not realize how Aristotelianism, rule of law, truthful speech, responsibility for the commons, But it’s not some naive optimism that ‘everything is gonna be alright’.

    Regardless of what civilization or culture you are from, I’m not one of those professors paid to coddle you with comforting falsehoods, or pretense of respect, in exchange for preserving the income stream for the university, or my job. I know my job. My job is jurisprudence. I’m a prosecutor.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 15:17:00 UTC

  • TRIPARTISM TO QUADRIPARTISM —“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work

    TRIPARTISM TO QUADRIPARTISM

    —“Those who Fight, Those who Pray, Those who Work What’s the fourth class?”— Richard Hall

    ^Burghers (the middle class). “Those who Trade”

    The middle class emerged only once production was able to scale. And production could only scale once productivity was high enough to produce sufficient surpluses to scale.

    We can modernize Tripartism and simply call them The Defensive, Military, Judicial classes, The Administrative, Clerical, Educational classes, and Productive Financial Entrepreneurial, Professional, Managerial, Craftsman and Labor classes. None of us mention the underclasses, because until recently that meant ‘slave’ because they lacked agency, family, resources, and knowledge to be allowed to ‘roam free’ without an ‘owner’ to take responsibility for them – meaning defend the population from them.

    But since we develop elites in each of the Military, Administrative, and Productive classes, leaving the majority of the population managing only personal capital, especially the family, and making use of whatever elites that most serve their needs, we tend to separate the economic (Financial, Entrepreneurial,) from the Professional, Managerial, craftsmanly, and laboring classes.

    The middle east and far east, because of flood river valleys, and irrigation in them, combined the organization of production into the priesthood, and into the state, and the merchant class, even wealthy, traded specialty goods more than organized commodity capital goods in production. Preserving the trading, craftsman, and workman classes, and maintaining what we consider the capitalist class into the state. The problem is of course, state inefficiency and parasitism.

    The big economic shift occurred when the middle class Germanic Europe, was able to accumulate enough capital to develop the Hanseatic league on the continent – thanks to the lack of a strong central state – and create its own rule of law, own defense, own outposts, and trade networks. It ruled for three hundred years dragging northern Europe into post medieval wealth.

    The British people able to do the same in the colonies by the same reason: a military state, but an entrepreneurial middle class, capable of funding it’s own adventure. The colonies ended up being a better long term investment, which is why germany, after fighting off napoleon, needed to unify to prevent another despotic french catastrophe, sought to expand her influences (rightly so in my understanding) into territories it had economically domesticated, putting her into competition with Russia and England by unbalancing the world distribution of powers england found (like the usa wrongly does today) the optimum for commercial gains.

    The British Americans took this to the ultimate test, and created a purely middle class civilization – escaping both church and state – preserving the germanic rule of law, and individual sovereignty.

    And while england created empire, germany created science, we created opportunity and productivity, and the rest is history.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-29 12:19:00 UTC

  • Nature does not let us have our cake and eat it too. Unless we stay ahead of her

    Nature does not let us have our cake and eat it too.
    Unless we stay ahead of her, the red queen always wins, if for no other reason than human genes regress to the mean, and the mean of human genetics is barely able to manage literacy.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 15:09:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188835189792919552

    Reply addressees: @thanos_pope @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188834784576978944

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @thanos_pope @JohnMarkSays So what is ‘moral’ when we have through pretense of morality, reduced the developed world to south america, india, and africa – except for the east asians who are not so ‘affected’ by ‘feminine’ preoccupation in political matters.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188834784576978944

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @thanos_pope @JohnMarkSays So what is ‘moral’ when we have through pretense of morality, reduced the developed world to south america, india, and africa – except for the east asians who are not so ‘affected’ by ‘feminine’ preoccupation in political matters.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188834784576978944

  • USURY (repost) Interest vs Usury. Interest is necessary for the organization of

    USURY

    (repost)

    Interest vs Usury.

    Interest is necessary for the organization of complex production. it is beneficial for production of generations. It is risky for the purpose of consumption. It is harmful for the production of entertainment. It is very harmful for the production of anti-social behaviors.

    What demarcates Interest from Usury?

    (a) credit for consumption rather than production.

    (b) borrower beware rather than lender beware.

    (c) collateral

    If lending is limited to production, lender risk, and un-recoverability for anything other than fraud, then it’s shared risk. And it increases use of stock markets where access to liquidity is possible instead of collateral recovery.

    The enemy’s technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents.

    Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard, by the extension of credit for the purpose of consumption, the use of collateral, and the use of the court to transfer assets to the lender.

    The enemy’s technique uses every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and critique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. …

    There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late.

    Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 13:23:00 UTC

  • Why Define Natural Rights? Just as entropy must be articulated as physics, chemi

    Why Define Natural Rights?

    Just as entropy must be articulated as physics, chemistry, biology, etc, Natural Law must be articulated as natural rights for the simple reason that it’s not possible to correctly deduce all applications of entropy without the requisite domain knowledge, or is it possible to correctly deduce all applications of reciprocity without requisite domain knowledge – although when stated that way it’s kind of helpful.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 12:07:00 UTC

  • ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON SOFT EUGENICS – THE AUTISTIC CHILD EXAMPLE —“[“Demarcat

    ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON SOFT EUGENICS – THE AUTISTIC CHILD EXAMPLE

    —“[“Demarcation between animal and human is agency, not…”] Interesting. So this would make all children non human by this logic.”— @thanos_pope

    —“So let’s hypothetically say I have a child with a more severe form of autism. It is unlikely he will ever have full agency. Would P reclassify him as animal? What would happen to him in this hypothetical structure?”—

    I have no idea. I’m not making a political or moral statement, I’m simply stating that we use conflation for deception. either one has agency or not. If one has agency one is certainly fully human. If one does not then evolution and parenting failed the transition to fully human.

    —Fascinating. Obviously I was not trying to be conflating in my questions. I was asking to better understand where my real life son would fit in. I found you thru the videos of

    @JohnMarkSays and liked what he had to say. I am a little concerned with how we would treat my son.”—

    The context is in discussing the point at which one has the agency to make decisions in a polity. Would you want him lead a polity? Body or soldiers? A family? Make decisions for himself?

    —“You understand my worry Mr Doolittle. Using the demarcation “human” has been done before. And lead to tragedies. No I wouldn’t want him to do those things in his current condition. Neither would i like him to be treated badly as subhuman. T4 program started similar to this talk”—

    I understand completely. Although, we have deal with the reality that the reason we are talking about this subject is the utility of soft eugenics(one child, no child policy), and not hard eugenics(euthanasia). Hard eugenics breaks reciprocity. Not having soft eugenics does too.

    —“Now that makes more sense. But I wouldn’t remove humanity from them. There has to be a better way. Certainly no citizenship (under your system). But residency and policy on not allowing (though I don’t see this happening for him regardless) procreation.”—

    Well, you’re an in-group member, speaking truthfully, not trying to engage in parasitism, but wanting ‘insurance’ from the rest of us. Now what if you’re an immigrant, you want free money, education, but you don’t want pay by giving up your manners, customs, language, religion?

    And by doing so you want to impose costs on our civilization’s money, education, markets, manners, customs, language, religion, law, government? Is that reciprocity or theft?

    Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft?

    Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft?

    Take it a step farther. You and your family are unable to produce your own income, and are dependent upon the rest of us to provide for you. Should you have the right to reproduce, or are you, by reproducing given the unproductivity of your genes – making reciprocity or theft?

    Take it a step farther. Your family has a record of not only inability to produce income, but criminal behavior, anti social behavior (alcohol, drugs, violence, promiscuity), or mental illness. Do you have the right to reproduce, or are you, by reproducing, engaging in theft?

    Now flip it around. Your family has a record of self sufficiency, achievement, pro-social behavior, and not only mental health, but mental achievement. It’s not-reproducing a loss? No. But it is lowering the talent pool of the polity. Is failing to reproduce an irreciprocity?

    Next look to a world where the genetic inventory of western civilization and east asian civilization that we both produced over thousands of years of ‘soft’ eugenics under agrarianism, and capital punishment for anti-social behavior, has been reversed by dysgenic reproduction.

    And it is no longer possible to organize majority genetic middle class polities, because the rates of reproduction of the underclasses have reversed our eugenic selection, and ‘economic growth’ making that reversal, is no longer possible.

    So what is ‘moral’ when we have through pretense of morality, reduced the developed world to south america, india, and africa – except for the east asians who are not so ‘affected’ by ‘feminine’ preoccupation in political matters.

    Nature does not let us have our cake and eat it too.

    Unless we stay ahead of her, the red queen always wins, if for no other reason than human genes regress to the mean, and the mean of human genetics is barely able to manage literacy.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 11:13:00 UTC