Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Men develop mindfulness because we are danger

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Men develop mindfulness because we are dangerous to ourselves, each other, and others. If men do not have mindfulness they have not engaged in sufficient competitive play with other men. once men have mindfulness they can be taught.

    Women can be taught as well, but they must be taught mindfulness first, and the only way I know how to do that is stoicism (self authoring). Every other technique only makes them worse. Instead of being angry or frustrated acknowledge that women’s lack of agency is necessary for the raising of children among competing females under the jurisdiction of competing males.

    I learned in eastern europe that the problem is solved by giving women the permission always and everywhere to ‘be women’, but not giving women permission to tread in the male domain – business, politics, and war.

    All women must have the right to ‘have and express emotions’. And to let them pass. But they must never treat them seriously when the topic is serious.

    We are men.

    Let women be women. Let me be men.

    We are both happier for it.

    Reciprocity in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 15:21:48 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANTI-GAY POSTURING – OR AN

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANTI-GAY POSTURING – OR ANYONE ELSE

    I studied art and art history. I think, out of the whole college, four of us were hetero. We were the minority. Most of the men were gay. Studying art is great way to catch the best girls. Artsy girls are the best by far ’cause they embrace the feminine rather than fight it, and tend to be more sensual.

    My first business was in the commercial art supply biz when it was still a manual craft. Straight men still dominated that field and still do but the clerical and middle labor was heavily gay.

    So maybe it’s my background, but I don’t agree with anti-homosexual bias. While I definitely have a disgust response to non-hetero public displays of affection, and I certainly don’t want to be ‘hit on’ – it makes me furious – I know this is a genetic response on my part to protect the tribe.

    But my experience is (and I bet the data shows) that at least homosexual males seem to produce fantastic externalities for both male and female hetero society. It has always been a practice of mine to find gay men to help with clothing choices, decorating ideas, understanding the people in the work place, negotiate with women, and in general facilitate relationships. Yes I have had some issues with PDA that customers have made issues out of (making out a stairway at a customer site).

    I don’t think sex is a public matter, and I don’t think any reference to sex outside of familial reproduction belongs in the commons, but as far as I know, while it’s a birth defect, it is not in fact bad unless – like any sexual behavior (non-imposition of aesthetic differences) – it is evident in the commons.

    So I view gender issues as a matter of manners in the commons and little else.

    You now, I loved having hippies, pot heads, the dead heads, metal heads, biker groups, yuppies, artsies, jocks, prissies, and all the other signal groups. But I loved them when we were all the same – families – other than signal groups.

    The problem is we are now speciating because we can afford to speciate, because we can afford to SORT, and through mobility and sortition specialize.

    This is a good thing as long as we create governments for each group that is speciating, becasue governments create the commons necessary to support the interests of those who are speciating.

    The problem is the fallacy of “WE”. There is no longer a ‘WE’, becuase we are not enough the same as we were until 1960 when the left decided to achieve through third world immigration what they could not achieve by their ideas.

    A libertarian does not want to govern others. He or she only wants to remain ungoverned by others. However, we differ in the commons we demand. And as such we differ in the polities we must produce.

    SO the only solution is Revolution, Secession, Sortition, Prosperity, and Speciation.

    You see, it’s pretty obvious given the genetic record that we were in the process of speciating by region. Farming changed that. At present, farming is over, and speciation can continue becasue we can afford to this time, not because it was necessary as in prior eras.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 15:07:09 UTC

  • WE CAN AFFORD TO SPECIATE – SO LET’S DO IT The problem is we are now speciating

    WE CAN AFFORD TO SPECIATE – SO LET’S DO IT

    The problem is we are now speciating because we can afford to speciate, because we can afford to SORT, and through mobility and sortition specialize.

    This is a good thing as long as we create governments for each group that is speciating, becasue governments create the commons necessary to support the interests of those who are speciating.

    The problem is the fallacy of “WE”. There is no longer a ‘WE’, becuase we are not enough the same as we were until 1960 when the left decided to achieve through third world immigration what they could not achieve by their ideas.

    A libertarian does not want to govern others. He or she only wants to remain ungoverned by others. However, we differ in the commons we demand. And as such we differ in the polities we must produce.

    SO the only solution is Revolution, Secession, Sortition, Prosperity, and Speciation.

    You see, it’s pretty obvious given the genetic record that we were in the process of speciating by region. Farming changed that. At present, farming is over, and speciation can continue becasue we can afford to this time, not because it was necessary as in prior eras.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 11:28:00 UTC

  • Men develop mindfulness because we are dangerous to ourselves, each other, and o

    Men develop mindfulness because we are dangerous to ourselves, each other, and others. If men do not have mindfulness they have not engaged in sufficient competitive play with other men. once men have mindfulness they can be taught.

    Women can be taught as well, but they must be taught mindfulness first, and the only way I know how to do that is stoicism (self authoring). Every other technique only makes them worse. Instead of being angry or frustrated acknowledge that women’s lack of agency is necessary for the raising of children among competing females under the jurisdiction of competing males.

    I learned in eastern europe that the problem is solved by giving women the permission always and everywhere to ‘be women’, but not giving women permission to tread in the male domain – business, politics, and war.

    All women must have the right to ‘have and express emotions’. And to let them pass. But they must never treat them seriously when the topic is serious.

    We are men.

    Let women be women. Let me be men.

    We are both happier for it.

    Reciprocity in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 11:21:00 UTC

  • I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANTI-GAY POSTURING – OR ANYONE ELSE I studied art and art his

    I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANTI-GAY POSTURING – OR ANYONE ELSE

    I studied art and art history. I think, out of the whole college, four of us were hetero. We were the minority. Most of the men were gay. Studying art is great way to catch the best girls. Artsy girls are the best by far ’cause they embrace the feminine rather than fight it, and tend to be more sensual.

    My first business was in the commercial art supply biz when it was still a manual craft. Straight men still dominated that field and still do but the clerical and middle labor was heavily gay.

    So maybe it’s my background, but I don’t agree with anti-homosexual bias. While I definitely have a disgust response to non-hetero public displays of affection, and I certainly don’t want to be ‘hit on’ – it makes me furious – I know this is a genetic response on my part to protect the tribe.

    But my experience is (and I bet the data shows) that at least homosexual males seem to produce fantastic externalities for both male and female hetero society. It has always been a practice of mine to find gay men to help with clothing choices, decorating ideas, understanding the people in the work place, negotiate with women, and in general facilitate relationships. Yes I have had some issues with PDA that customers have made issues out of (making out a stairway at a customer site).

    I don’t think sex is a public matter, and I don’t think any reference to sex outside of familial reproduction belongs in the commons, but as far as I know, while it’s a birth defect, it is not in fact bad unless – like any sexual behavior (non-imposition of aesthetic differences) – it is evident in the commons.

    So I view gender issues as a matter of manners in the commons and little else.

    You now, I loved having hippies, pot heads, the dead heads, metal heads, biker groups, yuppies, artsies, jocks, prissies, and all the other signal groups. But I loved them when we were all the same – families – other than signal groups.

    The problem is we are now speciating because we can afford to speciate, because we can afford to SORT, and through mobility and sortition specialize.

    This is a good thing as long as we create governments for each group that is speciating, becasue governments create the commons necessary to support the interests of those who are speciating.

    The problem is the fallacy of “WE”. There is no longer a ‘WE’, becuase we are not enough the same as we were until 1960 when the left decided to achieve through third world immigration what they could not achieve by their ideas.

    A libertarian does not want to govern others. He or she only wants to remain ungoverned by others. However, we differ in the commons we demand. And as such we differ in the polities we must produce.

    SO the only solution is Revolution, Secession, Sortition, Prosperity, and Speciation.

    You see, it’s pretty obvious given the genetic record that we were in the process of speciating by region. Farming changed that. At present, farming is over, and speciation can continue becasue we can afford to this time, not because it was necessary as in prior eras.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 11:07:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. I mean, if you’re articulate, conniving, but

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    I mean, if you’re articulate, conniving, but not creative, and unburdened with moral intuition, then it’s deterministic that you will specialize in parasitism by false promise or moral hazard – and it’s rather obvious that you would develop a group evolutionary strategy that takes advantage of your ability to create exception. Take your average woman’s intuition and means of competition by gossip and undue compliment, remove all fear, and that’s what you get. Reversal of dimorphism seems to have been an effective strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 21:06:58 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Analytic Philosophy One of the nonsense descr

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Analytic Philosophy

    One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense.

    —“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”—

    The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science.

    As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology.

    So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation.

    Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law.

    The problem is that:
    1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional).
    2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism).
    3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction)
    ….
    Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again….
    Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique).

    Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 23:47:15 UTC

  • Analytic Philosophy One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is t

    Analytic Philosophy

    One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense.

    —“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”—

    The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science.

    As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology.

    So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation.

    Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law.

    The problem is that:

    1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional).

    2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism).

    3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction)

    ….

    Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again….

    Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique).

    Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 19:47:00 UTC

  • REASON MAGAZINE AS THE IMMATURE MALE Reason Magazine is an archetypal example of

    REASON MAGAZINE AS THE IMMATURE MALE

    Reason Magazine is an archetypal example of the selective measurement of ascendant male interests.

    <-Female———-Ascendent Male——-Established Male->

    ….Consumption………..Production………………Preservation…

    ….Short Term…………Medium Term……………..Long Term…..

    ….Socialism……………..Libertarian………………..Aristocracy….

    ….Gossip…………………..Exchange……………………Force………

    (a) What deltas in Capital do Reason Magazine’s editors and authors not account for? (Classical – Jewish Blending)

    (b) How does Mises Differ from Cato and Reason? (Jewish)

    (c) How does Reason differ from Cato Institute? (Classical)

    (d) How does Heritage differ from Cato? (Burkeian)

    (e) Where does each sit on this scale?

    Notice that there are no German think tanks in the USA on the right, only on the left.

    In the end the rider (passenger) is incognizant of the elephant. We are gene machines. And our differences are due largely to genetics. And those genetics are the result of degree of Neoteny and distribution of gender dimorphism, and the degree of uncorrected (not yet selected out) error (defect) in those genes.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 09:33:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. AMERICAN POLICY IS NOT MORALLY GOOD – JUST PR

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    AMERICAN POLICY IS NOT MORALLY GOOD – JUST PRAGMATIC PURSUIT OF MARKET PROSPERITY

    Let me put something into perspective. America advocates markets and meritocracy and fixed borders. This sounds very ‘moral’ but it is just profitable for an advanced country to advocate meritocracy. For the same reason it is sensible for a less advanced country to advocate authoritarianism.

    We all pursue self intersets. It is just that sometimes, self interest is in everyone’s interest. And America’s self interest is most often in everyone’s interest.

    It’s not because americans are good or smart.

    it’s because it is more profitable.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 01:12:34 UTC