(FB 1550775965 Timestamp) GO GET YOUR OWN LEADER OR BECOME ONE YOURSELF. Let me help you. I don’t want to ‘lead’. Especially losers. I want to provide a solution. I want to arm people with possibility. I want leadership to emerge by attracting talent to the solution. I want our people to win. And it won’t be ANYONE on the alt right that emerges. OK? NO ONE. NEVER HAPPEN. EVER. Getting alt-righters what they want as working class men and leading the alt right are contradictory propositions. I’m in it for the little guy. They guy with a job, a family, and who is being fked by the Cathedral complex. And for our people’s persistence. I don’t need to be inspiring. I don’t seek to be. I need to manufacture a weapon that will work. And I need people to not cause damage to that weapon through stupidity, ignorance, arrogance, and signaling. And I’ve led most of my life thanks. The only reason I end up leading is if everyone better than I am fails. So stop trying to make me a cult leader, OR insult me for NOT being a cult leader. Because you do both. Which is ironic. I am either not a cult leader and therefore not good, or a cult leader and therefore bad. When the fact is I am an educator and solution provider, and that is all. What you mean is, you want me to carry your water. Because you can’t. I’ve done the engineering. You need to do the work. But your bullshit just hurts you. Not me. I can’t lose. The worst that happens to me is I produce a Tome that will bear my name for years, while I enjoy what remains of my life. The worst that happens to you is exactly what you fear. -cheers
Form: Mini Essay
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550796209 Timestamp) A BLACK PILL Here is the harder question. What if all knowledge that begins with the scientific revolution – a term which means ‘that which is beyond human scales of ordinary perception’ – is past the means of comprehension of average people, … And (a) it is no longer possible for people to comprehend any of the sciences – and now, with P, even the social sciences. And that (b) the reason for the postwar conquest of our people by Abrahamism version 2 (marxism/postmodernism) is because they cannot tolerate tolerate a world beyond their comprehension and therefore are susceptible to the pseudosciences of marxism, the sophisms of postmodernism, and the pseudoscience and sophism of feminism and outright denialism. In other words, what If, by completing the sciences, including language(metaphysics), psychology, and social science, and by providing a single commensurable language of all sciences, means that without education (training) it is no longer possible for ordinary people to understand ANY OF THE SCIENCES, not just the physical sciences. And so it is not possible to obtain their consent on a constitution of those sciences, only on the policy that results from them – and one’s (my,our, ruling class’s) warranty of those sciences…. So what if we are just recovering to the level of civic development of Roman civilization today and we are repeating the peak. And without harnessing hydrocarbons we would not have surpassed them. And that without rapid and extensive eugenics, humans can never evolved past the limits of those unable to reason beyond human scale of perception. And so devolution is necessary in the present world as it was in the past, and dark ages are going to continue not end. And with each cycle we lose more and more of our hunter-gatherer reserves, until the genome is exhausted and we devolve like the middle east in to ever decreasing genetic ability.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550842386 Timestamp) DOMESTICATION BY EXTERMINATION OF ALPHAS by Skye Stewart –“Curt are you in agreement with Wrangmanâs general thesis as explored in this essay?”– —âA decades-long, painstaking experiment by two Russian geneticists working in Siberia showed that reduced brain size, thinner bones, and all of the other markers of domestication syndrome are merely incidental byproducts of a primary adaptation: reduced reactive aggression. In organisms selecting against such aggression, the migration of neural-crest cellsâa special kind of cell that carries developmental instructions throughout the embryo and fetusâis delayed, resulting in smaller bodies, smaller brains, hormonal changes, and the rest. âStudies have been fairly clear on this. What has been unclear is why human communities selected against reactive aggression. For Wrangham, the answer is that group life requires a minimum of stability. No trait is more disruptive than reactive aggression, which fuels such behaviors as quests for dominance and demands for submission; arrogance, bullying, and random violence; and the monopolizing of food and females. That is a behavioral profile of the alpha male, the arch-reactive aggressor. Communities must either endure such pests or eliminate them. Once humans could communicate (the origin of language canât be further narrowed down than three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand years ago, but empathy or âshared intentionalityâ appears to be independent of language and might be sufficient for communication), the die was cast. The origin of domestication, Wrangham proposes, was the group execution of alpha males. Civilization is founded on capital punishmentâor, to give it its anthropological name, âcoalitionary proactive aggression.ââ— —RESPONSE— Exactly. I quote this all the time, and it’s pretty well thought through in the literature. I mean, it’s the dominant theory. Which is why I use it. “Once we had spears, the alpha was doomed” The related argument FYI, is that language was invented to rally spear carriers against alpha males, and this is where female GSRRM comes from: undermining all power in order to preserve her freedom of choice in reproduction. Women don’t know they’re destructive. They do it out of instinct. So the problem is CONSTRAINING the destructive power of women thru undermining, JUST AS MUCH as constraining the coercive power of dominant males. (Note: someone else mentioned that this theory is from Christopher Boehm of Jane Goodall’s clan. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but that would make sense.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550796209 Timestamp) A BLACK PILL Here is the harder question. What if all knowledge that begins with the scientific revolution – a term which means ‘that which is beyond human scales of ordinary perception’ – is past the means of comprehension of average people, … And (a) it is no longer possible for people to comprehend any of the sciences – and now, with P, even the social sciences. And that (b) the reason for the postwar conquest of our people by Abrahamism version 2 (marxism/postmodernism) is because they cannot tolerate tolerate a world beyond their comprehension and therefore are susceptible to the pseudosciences of marxism, the sophisms of postmodernism, and the pseudoscience and sophism of feminism and outright denialism. In other words, what If, by completing the sciences, including language(metaphysics), psychology, and social science, and by providing a single commensurable language of all sciences, means that without education (training) it is no longer possible for ordinary people to understand ANY OF THE SCIENCES, not just the physical sciences. And so it is not possible to obtain their consent on a constitution of those sciences, only on the policy that results from them – and one’s (my,our, ruling class’s) warranty of those sciences…. So what if we are just recovering to the level of civic development of Roman civilization today and we are repeating the peak. And without harnessing hydrocarbons we would not have surpassed them. And that without rapid and extensive eugenics, humans can never evolved past the limits of those unable to reason beyond human scale of perception. And so devolution is necessary in the present world as it was in the past, and dark ages are going to continue not end. And with each cycle we lose more and more of our hunter-gatherer reserves, until the genome is exhausted and we devolve like the middle east in to ever decreasing genetic ability.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550842386 Timestamp) DOMESTICATION BY EXTERMINATION OF ALPHAS by Skye Stewart –“Curt are you in agreement with Wrangmanâs general thesis as explored in this essay?”– —âA decades-long, painstaking experiment by two Russian geneticists working in Siberia showed that reduced brain size, thinner bones, and all of the other markers of domestication syndrome are merely incidental byproducts of a primary adaptation: reduced reactive aggression. In organisms selecting against such aggression, the migration of neural-crest cellsâa special kind of cell that carries developmental instructions throughout the embryo and fetusâis delayed, resulting in smaller bodies, smaller brains, hormonal changes, and the rest. âStudies have been fairly clear on this. What has been unclear is why human communities selected against reactive aggression. For Wrangham, the answer is that group life requires a minimum of stability. No trait is more disruptive than reactive aggression, which fuels such behaviors as quests for dominance and demands for submission; arrogance, bullying, and random violence; and the monopolizing of food and females. That is a behavioral profile of the alpha male, the arch-reactive aggressor. Communities must either endure such pests or eliminate them. Once humans could communicate (the origin of language canât be further narrowed down than three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand years ago, but empathy or âshared intentionalityâ appears to be independent of language and might be sufficient for communication), the die was cast. The origin of domestication, Wrangham proposes, was the group execution of alpha males. Civilization is founded on capital punishmentâor, to give it its anthropological name, âcoalitionary proactive aggression.ââ— —RESPONSE— Exactly. I quote this all the time, and it’s pretty well thought through in the literature. I mean, it’s the dominant theory. Which is why I use it. “Once we had spears, the alpha was doomed” The related argument FYI, is that language was invented to rally spear carriers against alpha males, and this is where female GSRRM comes from: undermining all power in order to preserve her freedom of choice in reproduction. Women don’t know they’re destructive. They do it out of instinct. So the problem is CONSTRAINING the destructive power of women thru undermining, JUST AS MUCH as constraining the coercive power of dominant males. (Note: someone else mentioned that this theory is from Christopher Boehm of Jane Goodall’s clan. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but that would make sense.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550970084 Timestamp) IT’S NOT DOG WHISTLING – IT’S DETERMINISM by Bill Joslin For those dubious of impending interviewer violence (4GW) consider the rise of nation states and Westphalia peace constrained violence to state actors lone i.e. elimination of private war and intra-border violence. The rise of globalism requires the erosion of national borders and with it the constraints on war to inter-border actors (nations) which reintroduces intra-border violence i.e. non-state actors engaging in war. Domestic violence (war with in borders) rises as Westphalia peace eroded. What we call terrorism today. Those that would call us warmongers or dog whistling are ignoring much more complex relations to sport out “m’uh provocateur! Rheeee!!” Choice is – acknowledge the full array of probabilities and prepare, or stay ignorant of probabilities and succumb. We are facing: 1) low birth rates (urgent) 2) demographic replacement (urgent) 3) erosion of institutions which minimized intra-border violence (low trust commons) 4) re-incentivizing non-state actors to engage in war either via proxies or directly. We must consider and calculate ALL of these issues, not just the ones we’re comfortable with.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551029191 Timestamp) AFAIK book Q is lost. This draft produced an oral tradition. The oral traditions spread and was modified and added to. The ability to rally the underclasses by it to violence against the romans and greeks spread revolutionary insurrection and resistance just like did Marxism in the present world using the same false promises. This new religion provided a revolutionary vehicle, and people piled onto it in revolt. Judaism > Revolt against the agrarian and metalsmithing peoples (fertile crescent empires). Christianity > Revolt against greeks and romans. By undermining the minority aristocracy of the west. Islam > revolt against ALL aristocratic civilizations – justifying destruction, conquest, and stealing everything not nailed down. Marxism > Libertarianism > Postmodernism > Feminism > Neoconservatism > Islamism : Revolt against ALL the great civilizations – in a desperate attempt to restore underclass rule. One continuous dysgenic, decivilizing, revolt against the indo europeans and their expansion, and their conversion from feminine underclass to masculine aristocratic rule. The war will continue until we name the war for what it is, and end it one way or another.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551019022 Timestamp) ANSWERING A COMMON CRITICISM OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION —“Whenever I read something like “disproportionate success of western civilization in the ancient” I think of the cult of Dionysus and their ritualized cannibalism, the Athenians and their practice of choosing -by popular vote! – a human “scapegoat” for their collective sins to banish to certain death, the fact that the Romans only rarely performed human sacrifice in situations like the wars with the Carthaginians, the fact that one of the most revered figures from the Ancient Greek philosophical tradition was a man – Diogenes – who masturbated in public and slept in a barrel, that the Spartans used to leave infants to die in the wild of exposure if they weren’t deemed “fit” as future soldiers, that Plato was a proponent of – in his “The Republic” – a totalitarian dystopia as the ideal society, that pederasty was considered a good thing by many of their “greatest” thinkers, and that they – Romans – then deteriorated into a state where the main public pastime was watching slaves murder each other and be eaten alive by animals, it makes me wonder how this could possibly be considered a success.”—-Abu Ayoub Someone on my management team defended me once by saying —-“Curt fails like the rest of us, the difference is we do a few things and some fail, he does ten thousand things, and some fail.”— I do not confuse perfect with THE BEST. Meanwhile most civilizations cannot produce anything resembling a western commons or polity, because they cannot cull or rule the underclasses, cannot produce a competitive aristocracy, cannot produce truth, trust, commons, defense of commons, and break the limits of family, clan, and tribe to produce goods. Only japanese and Koreans. They applied truth, they created naturalism and reason culminating in roman law, and by archimedes were on the verge of the industrial revolution in just a few hundred years – and we dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, and vicisitudes of nature. Why? They preserve competition in all walks of life, and deem it heroic. All the great civilizations of the ancient world are lost but east asia. Europe was rebuilt itself from the north. Harappan didn’t make it, but did it’s best from the east. And Judaism, christianity, and islam are a cancer that destroys all before it by reversing eugenic progress. The secret to success for a people is shrinking the lower classes until the middle classes are productive enough to carry what remains, without constant decline. the problem is it is preferable for rulers to keep people poor can concentrate wealth – everywhere except for far east and far west. China had Reason-lite and order before face but face before truth, the west had Reason, and truth before all and markets. With christianity as the cancer that we are still (some of us) struggling to escape. Africa, the pacific, and america had too little time. The middle east over extended and islam destroyed all the great civilizations as a cancer of uncontrolled underclass growth. ANd we simply see this in the data. That said, your criticisms are legit. they are just immaterial in relation to the successes. If you were ruled, were you better off under any rule than you are under western? There is no comparison of rule between civilizations even between chinese rule and western rule. The the greatest mistake my people made was expanding aristocratic egalitarianism (aristocracy of everyone) beyond the possible. The second greatest mistake my people made was the white man’s burden. It is true. But we should never have tried to carry that burden. The third greatest mistake my people made was trying to preserve the ‘market’ of the balance of powers, rather than letting the russians retake constantinople, and the germans eastern europe. The fourth greatest mistake my people made was the sequence of falure to return the slaves to africa, liberating our ancient enemy the jews, not prosecuting the communists with an inquisition, and the postwar immigration act – these are christian errors. All of these are the same mistake – optimism about mankind – and virtue signaling.
-
(FB 1551139715 Timestamp) THE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?” Answering
(FB 1551139715 Timestamp) THE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?” Answering this ‘fringe’ stuff simply demonstrates the power of propertarian analysis. 😉 And it’s funny….. lol —“Curt Doolittle can pu–y be property?”—Kyle Brawn You know, under the right conditions, I would answer that question sarcastically and get hammered for it. But at the moment I have my wits about me, and I will say that: Empirically, for almost all of history, it has been property. I am not sure it still isn’t. It’s just collective rather than private ownership. Empirically, Given The Possible Series: 1. Possession in fact (under your control – self defense ) 2. Consensual Property. (normative property – reciprocal defense) 3. Institutional Property (property rights – institutional defense) It is possible to have ‘it’ under your control, normatively under your control, and institutional under your control. Having ‘it’ just requires your ability to protect your control by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means. In general it’s pretty difficult without (a) a slave population, and (b) institutional means of defending it. Given that ‘it’ is not capable of self defense, ‘it’ doesn’t have an opinion. It is instead, the men who are willing to insure or prevent ‘ownership’ by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means that determine the outcome. In general the outcome depends upon (a) the affordability of surplus native females willingness of native brothers and fathers to tolerate or (b) the affordability of surplus alien females and the ability of native females to rally their protecting males to prohibit the discount of their female market value by alien females. The future has a very good chance of restoring slavery as far as I can tell, and the recent period of luxury produced by the western advances in technology may be a temporary rather than permanent progression. That is, I think, the argument. Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value. In other words Might Makes Rights – whether right or wrong. Always and everywhere. “Veritas Et Violentia”
-
(FB 1551139715 Timestamp) THE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?” Answering
(FB 1551139715 Timestamp) THE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?” Answering this ‘fringe’ stuff simply demonstrates the power of propertarian analysis. 😉 And it’s funny….. lol —“Curt Doolittle can pu–y be property?”—Kyle Brawn You know, under the right conditions, I would answer that question sarcastically and get hammered for it. But at the moment I have my wits about me, and I will say that: Empirically, for almost all of history, it has been property. I am not sure it still isn’t. It’s just collective rather than private ownership. Empirically, Given The Possible Series: 1. Possession in fact (under your control – self defense ) 2. Consensual Property. (normative property – reciprocal defense) 3. Institutional Property (property rights – institutional defense) It is possible to have ‘it’ under your control, normatively under your control, and institutional under your control. Having ‘it’ just requires your ability to protect your control by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means. In general it’s pretty difficult without (a) a slave population, and (b) institutional means of defending it. Given that ‘it’ is not capable of self defense, ‘it’ doesn’t have an opinion. It is instead, the men who are willing to insure or prevent ‘ownership’ by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means that determine the outcome. In general the outcome depends upon (a) the affordability of surplus native females willingness of native brothers and fathers to tolerate or (b) the affordability of surplus alien females and the ability of native females to rally their protecting males to prohibit the discount of their female market value by alien females. The future has a very good chance of restoring slavery as far as I can tell, and the recent period of luxury produced by the western advances in technology may be a temporary rather than permanent progression. That is, I think, the argument. Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value. In other words Might Makes Rights – whether right or wrong. Always and everywhere. “Veritas Et Violentia”