Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Like many things the simple imitations we do within our groups are evolved utili

    Like many things the simple imitations we do within our groups are evolved utilitarianisms. When we cooperate with outgroups our ingroup morals are irrelevant since it is violation of the outgroup’s morals that causes retaliation. When we predict outcomes of any group, all groups, the moral standard of weights and measures (universals) are how we both distinguish between groups and resolve conflicts between them.

    Ingroup morality: the set of via positiva rules we live by.
    Outgroup morality: pure pragmatism
    Universally Decidable Morality: the set of via negativa rules we must live by to avoid retaliation, conflict, and war.

    Conflict between groups is universally decidable (via neutral)
    Conflict within groups is decidable by variation from positivas.
    Conflict across groups is predictable by variation from universal decidabily (via negativa)

    I am not sure why this is hard to understand but it seems to be challenging for a lot of people.

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 19:09:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796619922023272449

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796618485738410070

  • The feeling at the time has little impact on the understanding over time. I have

    The feeling at the time has little impact on the understanding over time.
    I have three opinions.
    1. First, everyone wants the Palestinians to ‘go away’ because no one wants them or they’d take them in. They have their opportunity to create a viable polity and they don’t – instead they live on various international charities, and entertaining themselves with terrorism. While it’s one thing to fight and use terror it’s another to use islamic brutality. And Palestinians show no interests in doing otherwise. Israel must occupy both territories and end the threat or between reproductive differences and costs of producing a jew vs an arab mean Israel, especially with the large number of fundamentalist ‘parasites’ on the rest of the population, mean israel is unsustainable. As such I see Israel continuing until the west bank at least is under full control and settlement driving out the Palestinians. I can see them allowing the gaza strip. I see the USA continuing to wait out russia, iran, and china. I see israel giving the USA cause for attacking Iran. The USA won’t do that until israel gives it no choice.
    2. Second, strategically it is valuable to maintain Israel as the only high tech economy, with a strong education system, and a good government in the region. This is akin to china being threatened by a democratic hong kong and Taiwan, to Russia being threatened by a democratic Ukraine, and Iran being threatened by a democratic and successful Israel – because their success brings into question the legitimacy of the governments of China, Russia, and Iran for their populations.
    3. Third, by and large, the world hates the jews like the Palestinians and the Jews hate each other. So no one wants the jews or the Palestinians. In fact, most countries would love it if they could deport Jews to Israel without fear of international demonization. So, I don’t expect anyone to allow the collapse of Israel for the simple reason that it’s both strategically valuable and no one wants them to move elsewhere.

    Reply addressees: @hyperlambda

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 22:30:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795945805607505921

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795942346766553135

  • IT’S AN UNJUST WAR – OUR UNPREPAREDNESS FOR THE FEMALE METHOD OF WARFARE. —“Mr

    IT’S AN UNJUST WAR – OUR UNPREPAREDNESS FOR THE FEMALE METHOD OF WARFARE.

    —“Mr Doolittle … What we seem to be witnessing, the all out attack on the family has military, academic, political group feel about it. At least, just from the outside looking in. But what for? It’s an unjust war.”– @lughedd

    Correct.

    Here is how to understand our condition:

    The European group evolutionary strategy is aristocratic and top down, meaning that (a) the prohibition on arbitrary authority (b) requires demonstrated responsibility for self capital, private capital, and common capital including behavioral capital, (c) in exchange for sovereignty, autonomy, and participatory decision making, as well as defense by rule of law under it.

    Every time we lift up a new class of people into greater agency and influence they seek to preserve the irresponsibilities of their prior state despite the demands for responsibility in their new state.

    Every time we allow to cohabitate, or try to integrate, a new ethnic and demographic population into our the greater agency and influence we have in our population, they seek to preserve the irresponsibilities of their prior state despite the demands for responsibilities in their new state.

    We allowed two things to happen at the same time: the inclusion of women into the economy and into the political franchise at about the same time we allowed the introgression of postwar eastern jews into the polity.

    We had no way of knowing that the female means of antisocial behavior evolved in the jews as their group evolutionary strategy – how they compete through ‘undermining’ and ‘social construction’ the same way women do.

    We have never before encountered a set of competing elites with the female group evolutionary strategy. While we had barely integrated women, and, given that integration of any group takes at least three generations, the movement of both Eastern European Jews and the movement of the German Class marxists to the USA and switching to cultural marxism, sex marxism, and race marxism (by intent and design), the combination of an elite using the female method of warfare with a vast population of women who naturally intuit the ‘good’ of the female method of warfare, succeeded in the marxist tradition of ‘the march through the institutions of cultural production’ using women instead of men, at least, even if men produced most of the strategy, it was women voters and women in the economy especially in education and bureaucracy that made possible the warfare against our civilization.

    So just as as the male warfare moved from physical to economic to now informational and now into artificial intelligence, has the female method of warfare moved from undermining, to social construction, to sedition, indoctrination, to treason, using the female strategy.

    And, because our ‘rules of responsibility’ aren’t written down, only our rights, we had little way of defending ourselves from this new method of warfare.

    So, in my work that’s what I do. I research. I write down our group strategy and reason for success. I explain what happened. And I revise our constitution, law, policy sector, financial sector, and education to not only defend against reoccurrence.

    And you know… it took decades. Hopefully we will publish soon. It’s been an extraordinary amount of work.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @Lughedd

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-29 02:36:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795645340202209280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795636314093781403

  • MARS: MISSING MUSK’S POINT Like many, you miss Musk’s point, which is that the i

    MARS: MISSING MUSK’S POINT
    Like many, you miss Musk’s point, which is that the incremental solution to these problems by actually testing our ideas and discovering alternatives is the only way that we get to interstellar flight and the capacity for mankind to live independently of this planet and our solar system – both of which seem to attempt to exterminate us with disturbing regularity.
    In other words he’s not seeking mars for mars’ sake but mars as a step in the research and development program that brings us to the stars and evolutionary autonomy.
    And it’s not like anyone on earth makes better use of capital than he does in advancing technology, precisely because he uses this approach to innovation in advancement they way the Japanese do in refinement.
    We cant even get our government to worry about the next decade.

    Reply addressees: @LinusEkenstam

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 23:55:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795604887322951680

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795600846077731068

  • “Kids my age actually are quite scared of approaching woman.”– Nervousness, Cau

    –“Kids my age actually are quite scared of approaching woman.”–
    Nervousness, Cautiousness, Risk, and Scared are four different things. The first is simply social and emotional, the second is a matter of social consequences, the third is the social, mating, and economic consequences, and the fourth is a matter of lifetime consequences.

    I do understand nervousness, and I understand that women’s behavior given the utility of social media for attention-whoring is irresistible to them, and I understand that there are women who will use attention whoring as a means of intentional harm, so I do understand caution and concern for risk. On the other hand those are somewhat mitigable, while marriage and children are effectively suicidal.

    Reply addressees: @adominguez792

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 23:05:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795592310073241600

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795590738367193513

  • Men Aren’t Scared, They’re Just Rational Men aren’t scared. Women always project

    Men Aren’t Scared, They’re Just Rational

    Men aren’t scared. Women always project female emotions where men don’t have them. Instead, it’s that “the market for affection” has failed, and costs and risks of interacting with women are such that no effort at discovering a ‘coincidence of wants‘ is worth the investment.
    Men grasp that women live ‘within time’ and men live ‘across time’. That women seek consumption at lowest investment, and men seek capitalization at lowest investment. As such women demonstrate devotion in time but not loyalty over time, while men my vary devotion in time, they will maintain loyalty over time.
    Men understand that most women are looking for entertainment (consumption) rather than investment in the production of a family. And even then, women will nearly always leave, and take have the men’s investments.
    Then women can still pursue a new relationship by selling sex, affection and care, but men are no longer able to sell exclusivity of attention and investment to another woman.
    And worse, it means men are impoverished in later age because women have thus not only extracted the capital material relationship, and caretaking capital that men produced, but prevented them from creating new capital.
    Men understand that this system can’t continue because the rate of marital and reproductive collapse, and with it, men’s incentive to accumulate capital for themselves and for the polity, means the end of our political system, our economy, our various social security, and very likely our cohesion as a single territory.
    Men are going to continue to go this direction ‘until market demand forces women to bring a different product to market‘.
    We are seeing the breakdown of the magical thinking of the feminists at the moment, just as we saw the breakdown of the marxist in the past. It may take a while to work through the population but it will do so.
    Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in administrivia roles.
    So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.
    So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.
    I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)
    And from that perspective, the problem is fixable.
    It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. 😉
    Cheers CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 22:01:54 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1795576258794868753

  • Dating Mating And Marriage Men aren’t scared. Women always project female emotio

    Dating Mating And Marriage

    Men aren’t scared. Women always project female emotions where men don’t have them. Instead, it’s that “the market for affection” has failed, and costs and risks of interacting with women are such that no effort at discovering a ‘coincidence of wants’ is worth the investment.

    Men grasp that women live ‘within time’ and men live ‘across time’. That women seek consumption at lowest investment, and men seek capitalization at lowest investment. As such women demonstrate devotion in time but not loyalty over time, while men my vary devotion in time, they will maintain loyalty over time.

    Men understand that most women are looking for entertainment (consumption) rather than investment in the production of a family. And even then, women will nearly always leave, and take have the men’s investments.

    Then women can still pursue a new relationship by selling sex, affection and care, but men are no longer able to sell exclusivity of attention and investment to another woman.

    And worse, it means men are impoverished in later age because women have thus not only extracted the capital material relationship, and caretaking capital that men produced, but prevented them from creating new capital.

    Men understand that this system can’t continue because the rate of marital and reproductive collapse, and with it, men’s incentive to accumulate capital for themselves and for the polity, means the end of our political system, our economy, our various social security, and very likely our cohesion as a single territory.

    Men are going to continue to go this direction ‘until market demand forces women to bring a different product to market’.

    We are seeing the breakdown of the magical thinking of the feminists at the moment, just as we saw the breakdown of the marxist in the past. It may take a while to work through the population but it will do so.

    Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in administrivia roles.

    So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.

    So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.

    I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)

    And from that perspective, the problem is fixable.

    It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 21:58:54 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1795575501441875968

  • MEN AREN’T SCARED – THEY’RE JUST RATIONAL Men aren’t scared. Women always projec

    MEN AREN’T SCARED – THEY’RE JUST RATIONAL
    Men aren’t scared. Women always project female emotions where men don’t have them. It’s that “the market for affection” has failed, and costs and risks of interacting with women are such that no effort at discovering a ‘coincidence of wants’ is worth the investment.

    Men grasp that women live ‘within time’ and men live ‘across time’. That women seek consumption at lowest investment, and men seek capitalization at lowest investment. As such women demonstrate devotion in time but not loyalty over time, while men my vary devotion in time, they will maintain loyalty over time.

    Men understand that most women are looking for entertainment (consumption) rather than investment in the production of a family. And even then, women will nearly always leave, and take have the men’s investments.

    Then women can still pursue a new relationship by selling sex, affection and care, but men are no longer able to sell exclusivity of attention and investment to another woman.

    And worse, it means men are impoverished in later age because women have thus not only extracted the capital material relationship, and caretaking capital that men produced, but prevented them from creating new capital.

    Men understand that this system can’t continue because the rate of marital and reproductive collapse, and with it, men’s incentive to accumulate capital for themselves and for the polity, means the end of our political system, our economy, our various social security, and very likely our cohesion as a single territory.

    Men are going to continue to go this direction ‘until market demand forces women to bring a different product to market’.

    We are seeing the breakdown of the magical thinking of the feminists at the moment, just as we saw the breakdown of the marxist in the past. It may take a while to work through the population but it will do so.

    Unfortunately, we are at the point where the combination of feminism and the collapse of reproduction, women’s advocacy of massive immigration and diversity, and the end of the developing world being technologically and economically behind, and are about to enter what appears to be a depression that will last a few decades, including a new technology that will largely affect women in administrivia roles.

    So, I’m a little worried that just like the Italians, Germans, Russians, and Chinese, we’ll be beyond the point of demographic cultural economic and political recovery by the time that women’s behavior adapts to the new circumstances.

    So as Machiavelli, the Romans, and the Spartans have warned us, inclusion of women in politics, like universal enfranchisement, simply poisons the well of responsibility upon which all civilizations depend for their persistence.

    I think there is a solution to the problem of including women, and that’s simply the equal suppression in law of female antisocial and anti political behavior as that of men. (Which is what our traditional western ethics sought and achieved.)

    And from that perspective, the problem is fixable. It’s just a question of whether we’re too late, or on time. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @WallStreetSilv

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-28 21:22:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795566322027253761

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795475471850697022

  • WHY IS THERE AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WHY WILL IT NEVER CHANGE? –“When you vote

    WHY IS THERE AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WHY WILL IT NEVER CHANGE?

    –“When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren’t actually voting for President.  You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors.”–

    REASONS FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
    The electoral college consists of a number of citizens of the state according to the number of federal representatives including the house and the senate.

    Each candidate, but in reality each party, selects a number of electors – basically, among the people most active in the campaign for the individual and the party.

    Most states require electors to vote the popular vote, but at least two states use proportional distribution to the candidates.

    So you’re voting for the group of electors chosen by the people with the most knowledge of the candidate, the party and the platform.

    Why? Defense against influence and manipulation from out of state actors. Defense against the abuse of the voting process by radicals or corruption or special interests – it’s too many people of too much understanding of cause and consequence to bribe in one way or another.

    The Electoral College was established for several reasons:

    1. (Legitimacy) To balance the power between small and large states.
    The Electoral College was a compromise that balanced the influence of states with varying populations. It aimed to ensure that both smaller and larger states had a role in selecting the President, thus preserving the federal structure of the government where both national and state interests are considered.

    2. (Legitimacy) To ensure a broad regional consensus in Presidential elections.
    The system was designed to ensure that candidates needed to gain support from a variety of regions, preventing dominance by a single, populous region or state. This encouraged Presidential candidates to campaign across the entire country and consider a broader range of interests.

    3. (Competency) To provide a check against direct democracy and prevent potential tyranny of the majority.
    The Founding Fathers were wary of direct democracy due to concerns about the potential for mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. They believed that a pure popular vote could lead to unqualified candidates being elected based on fleeting popular sentiments or demagoguery.
    So, the Electoral College was seen as a buffer between the population and the selection of the President, allowing for a more informed and deliberate decision-making process by electors who would theoretically be better informed about the candidates and their qualifications.

    In other words, the USG was not designed to advance the majority but to protect the minority against the majority.

    THE USE OF “COMMONALITY” AND “CONCURRENCY”

    1. Commonality in the Law (Common Law) of Dispute Resolution (Via Negativa)
    Commonality refers to the empirical method of determining legal principles and dispute resolutions based on the consistent findings of courts across various classes and regions. This ensures that judicial decisions are incrementally refined, consistent, and precise.
    – Empirical Basis: Commonality relies on the aggregate findings of courts, making legal principles grounded in real-world applications and experiences across diverse contexts.
    – Incremental Refinement: Through repeated application and scrutiny, legal principles and precedents are continually refined, ensuring greater precision and consistency over time.
    – Universal Application: By drawing from a wide range of cases and regions, commonality ensures that legal principles are universally applicable and not biased toward any particular class or region.
    – Example Definition: “Commonality in the law of dispute resolution refers to the empirical method of deriving legal principles from the consistent findings of courts across various classes and regions. This approach ensures that judicial decisions are incrementally refined, consistent, and precise, reflecting a universal standard of justice.”

    2. Concurrency in the Production of Voting and Legislation (Via Positiva)
    Concurrency refers to the empirical method of producing voting outcomes and legislation through the common assent or veto across different regions and populations. This ensures that the legislative process accurately reflects the empirical desires of the population.
    – Empirical Reflection: Concurrency captures the true will of the people by requiring widespread agreement or veto, making the legislative process a genuine reflection of the population’s desires.
    – Protection Mechanism: This method protects the interests of minorities from the arbitrary discretion of authorities and safeguards majorities from potential excesses of the majority’s impulses and follies.
    – Balanced Governance: Concurrency ensures balanced governance by integrating diverse regional and population-based inputs into the legislative process, preventing unilateral decisions that could undermine the common good.
    – Example Definition: “Concurrency in the production of voting and legislation refers to the empirical method of deriving legislative outcomes through common assent or veto across different regions and populations. This approach ensures that the legislative process accurately reflects the desires of the population, protecting minority interests and limiting the impulses of the majority.”

    These definitions emphasize the empirical nature of both commonality and concurrency, highlighting their roles in creating a just and balanced government that protects minority interests and limits the potential excesses of majorities.

    The purpose of these rules is:
    1 – the production and preservation of the legitimacy of the government and the courts.
    2 – the production of legitimacy in ‘settled law’ and ‘settled legislation’ – meaning the public acceptance of the legitimacy in the law in court, public, or political activism.
    3 – the defense against the majority passions and majority incompetency.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-27 21:21:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795203648466702336

  • DID THE CHURCH MAKE GOOD USE OF CAPITAL? (No) It doesn’t look like it. In fact,

    DID THE CHURCH MAKE GOOD USE OF CAPITAL? (No)
    It doesn’t look like it. In fact, it looks a lot more like christianity use literacy as a weapon to keep the population docile, subservient, and ignorant and indoctrinated, so that it could extract rents (‘taxes’) from them for false services they claimed they provided but could not. In other words it was a very expensive, especially at medieval levels of productivity, burden on the population for no return – instead for relative stagnation and ignorance only overcome by the weakness of the church as a governing force, and the success of the economic sector in eventually breaking the church – beginning in 1200 with the restoration of classical knowledge, and the rise of the Hanseatic League and the restoration of trade, and succeeding as a consequence with the printing press and the massive explosion of a sequence of restorations of knowledge over the next 250 years, and the collapse of the church by the protestants thereafter.
    Even so, it took until the time of napoleon for europe to recover from the christian destruction of the ancient world, and the resulting superstition, feudalism, illiteracy, ignorance, and near absence of intellectual tradition under the church.
    And we are still struggling with our own fundamentalists, the jews, and the muslims (at least) because of this abrahamic counter-revolution against the indo europeans and in particularly greek reason. And the present revival of counter-revolution against europeans the jews, muslims, marxists and the marxist-to-woke sequence of abrahamic seditions.
    If we want to say jesus was a philosopher who made it possible for the little people to find virtue and honor and respect in doing no harm, and doing charity, rather than the heroism of the indo european aristocracy. If we want to say jesus was an anti-hero to compete with Achilles. If we want to say the bible is an anti-hero of the slave, underclass, and serf against the european aristocratic tradition’s demand for excellence, loyalty and responsibility that are impossible for middle eastern familism, clannishness, and tribalism – then that’s fine.
    But the church in general was a catastrophe.
    If instead they church had spread literacy in europe’s philosophy and epic cycle (the bible of the greco roman world) then we might have claimed it wasn’t a catastrophe. But it effectively tried to destroy civilization just as thoroughly as the marxist to woke sequence is destroying ours.
    Why? Because the abrahamic religions and marxist cults are just two generations on top of the female means of sedition by the attempt to end demand for personal responsibility.
    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @queen_calder

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-27 15:40:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795117955845361665

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1795114847371215259