Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ATHENS VS SPART = WEST VS RUSSIA –“Thucydides distinguished between Athens and

    ATHENS VS SPART = WEST VS RUSSIA

    –“Thucydides distinguished between Athens and Sparta by pointing out that Athens was close to the sea and had an excellent port, Piraeus. Sparta, on the other hand, was not a maritime power. Athens was much wealthier than Sparta. A maritime power can engage in international trade in a way that a landlocked power cannot.

    Therefore, the Athenian is wealthy, but in that wealth there are two defects. First, wealth creates luxury and luxury corrupts. Second, wider experience in the world creates moral ambiguity.

    Sparta enjoyed far less wealth than Athens. It was not built through trade but through hard labor. And thus, it did not know the world, but instead had a simple and robust sense of right and wrong.

    The struggle between strength from wealth and strength through effort has been a historical one. It can be seen in the distinction between the European Peninsula and Russia. Europe is worldly and derives great power from its wealth, but it is also prone to internecine infighting.

    Russia, though provincial, is more united than divided and derives power from the strength that comes from overcoming difficulty. The country is in a geographically vulnerable position; its core is inherently landlocked, and the choke points that its ships would have to traverse to gain access to oceans could be easily cut off.

    Therefore, Russia can’t be Athens. It must be Sparta, and that means it must be a land power and assume the cultural character of a Spartan nation. Russia must have tough if not sophisticated troops fighting ground wars. It must also be able to produce enough wealth to sustain its military as well as provide a reasonable standard of living for its people—but Russia will not be able to match Europe in this regard.

    So it isn’t prosperity that binds the country together, but a shared idealized vision of and loyalty toward Mother Russia. And in this sense, there is a deep chasm between both Europe and the United States (which use prosperity as a justification for loyalty) and Russia (for whom loyalty derives from the power of the state and the inherent definition of being Russian).”— George Friedman

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 19:25:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737554763640647680

  • Most of you know that I’m a dedicated fan of my friend Rudyard Lynch (@whatifalt

    Most of you know that I’m a dedicated fan of my friend Rudyard Lynch (@whatifalthist). So for fun I asked GPT4+ to convert a tweet by each of us into the other’s style of writing.

    I think, as usual, Mr Lynch wins. 😉

    PROMPT:
    Restate the following text, by youtuber @whatifalthist in the style of Curt Doolittle: “When did committing civilizational suicide become a real political position that people would debate over? Why isn’t this something people care more about. Whenever I talk about it people say I’m exaggerating and need to calm down. Our elite is literally trying to kill our society. Is everyone just this stupid and numb?”

    ChatGPT
    In the style of Curt Doolittle, known for his focus on truth, decidability, and civilizational analysis, the text from the YouTuber whatifalthist might be rephrased as follows:

    “At what juncture did the advocacy for civilizational self-destruction transform into a legitimate stance within the sphere of political discourse? It’s perplexing and warrants critical attention as to why this existential issue isn’t at the forefront of public concern. Yet, it’s evident that our societal leadership is engaging in actions that are, in effect, eroding the foundations of our civilization. Are we collectively ensnared in a state of ignorance or apathy? It’s imperative to confront these realities with rigorous truth-seeking and address the potential consequences of our current trajectory.”

    This restatement infuses the original message with a focus on the importance of truth and the critical examination of societal and political trends, reflecting the analytical style associated with Doolittle.

    PROMPT
    Now let’s reverse it. Restate the following text by Curt Doolittle in the style of youtuber @whatifalthist: “You didn’t seek the truth. You sought whether a statement was desirable or not. You conflated truth and approval. Many truths are undesirable. But knowing them we can seek alternative means of achieving beneficial ends – despite those who have failed to reach adulthood by evasion of responsibilty for their emotional self regulation, and projection of that failure onto others.”

    ChatGPT
    Restated in the style of the YouTuber @whatifalthist, known for a more direct and conversational approach to discussing historical and political topics, Curt Doolittle’s text might sound something like this:

    “Hey, let’s get real here. You’re not actually after the truth, are you? It looks like you’re just picking and choosing what feels good to believe. Mixing up what’s true with what’s liked is a big problem. Look, sometimes the truth isn’t all rainbows and butterflies. But it’s only by facing these tough truths that we can figure out how to make things better. We can’t just dodge the hard stuff. And seriously, some people need to grow up, stop avoiding responsibility for their feelings, and quit blaming everyone else for their problems.”

    This restatement maintains the essence of Doolittle’s message but delivers it in a tone and style more characteristic of @whatifalthist, focusing on accessibility and directness.
    —END–

    Had me laughing pretty hard. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-17 20:37:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736485893114904576

  • FRENCH VS ANGLO CONSERVATISM French conservatism and Anglo (British and American

    FRENCH VS ANGLO CONSERVATISM
    French conservatism and Anglo (British and American) conservatism, while sharing some broad principles, differ significantly in their historical development, philosophical underpinnings, and practical applications. These differences reflect the distinct historical and cultural contexts of France, Britain, and the United States.

    1. Historical Context:

    French Conservatism: Emerged largely in response to the French Revolution and the upheaval it caused. Key figures like Joseph de Maistre and Charles Maurras emphasized order, tradition, and hierarchy. French conservatism often nostalgically looked back to the pre-revolutionary era, particularly the monarchy and the Catholic Church, as ideal models of social and political order.

    Anglo Conservatism: In Britain, conservatism evolved as a reaction to the radicalism of the French Revolution but was less reactionary than French conservatism. Figures like Edmund Burke advocated for gradual change and respected traditional institutions and practices. In America, conservatism has been more closely tied to classical liberalism, emphasizing individual liberty, limited government, and free-market principles.

    2. Philosophical Foundations:

    French Conservatism: Tends to be more ideologically rigid, with a strong emphasis on cultural and religious traditions, social hierarchy, and a powerful state. It often incorporates a sense of romanticism and nostalgia for the past.

    Anglo Conservatism: Generally pragmatic and skeptical of grand theories or ideologies. British conservatism values tradition but is also open to gradual, evolutionary change. American conservatism, while sharing these traits, places a greater emphasis on individualism and economic liberalism.

    3. Attitudes Towards the State:

    French Conservatism: Often advocates for a strong, central authority to maintain order and tradition. This aligns with a historical preference for monarchism or strong executive leadership.

    Anglo Conservatism: In Britain, there is a balance between respect for strong institutions and skepticism towards concentrated power. In the U.S., conservatism traditionally supports a limited government, emphasizing personal freedom and market-driven solutions.

    4. Economic Policies:

    French Conservatism: Has been more open to state intervention in the economy and social welfare policies, reflecting a broader acceptance of state roles in managing society.

    Anglo Conservatism: Especially in the U.S., there is a strong preference for free-market capitalism and minimal state intervention in the economy. British conservatism, while market-oriented, accepts a more significant role for the state in welfare and healthcare.

    5. Social Policies:

    French Conservatism: Often closely aligned with Catholic social teachings, emphasizing family, community, and moral order.

    Anglo Conservatism: Tends to focus on individual responsibility and moral self-regulation, with a varying degree of emphasis on religious values depending on the context (more pronounced in the U.S.).

    In summary, while both French and Anglo conservatisms value tradition and social order, French conservatism is more ideologically driven, with a romantic attachment to the past and a preference for strong state authority. Anglo conservatism, particularly in the British context, is more pragmatic and skeptical of concentrated power, balancing respect for tradition with an acceptance of gradual change. American conservatism combines these traits with a unique emphasis on individualism and economic

    Or more simply:

    —“It’s just Catholicism vs Empiricism. Joseph De Maistre vs Burke.”– @TabbyTeamster

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @CarmelloM @BOB37702515 @AutistocratMS

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-14 08:57:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735222362532966400

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735112106226397219

  • French Continental Liberalism is the OPPOSITE of Anglo American Classical Libera

    French Continental Liberalism is the OPPOSITE of Anglo American Classical Liberalism.

    CurtD
    Compare liberalism, in the french sense, vs classical liberalism in the british and american sense.

    Comparing French liberalism with classical liberalism as it developed in the British and American contexts involves examining historical and philosophical nuances in the development of liberal thought in these regions. Here’s an overview:

    French Liberalism:
    Historical Context: French liberalism evolved in the context of the French Revolution and its aftermath. It was heavily influenced by the struggle against absolutism and the ideals of the Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity.

    State and Society: French liberalism traditionally emphasized the role of the state in safeguarding individual freedoms and maintaining order. It often supported a strong, centralized state as a guarantor of rights and a promoter of the common good.

    Rationalism and Reform: Influenced by the Enlightenment, French liberalism placed a strong emphasis on reason and the power of human intellect to reform society. Philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau were critical in shaping its principles.

    Equality and Fraternity: Alongside liberty, equality and fraternity were crucial components. There was a focus on social equality and solidarity as key aspects of a liberal society.

    British and American Classical Liberalism:
    Historical Context: Classical liberalism in Britain and America developed in the context of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of capitalism. It was shaped by thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and later John Stuart Mill.

    Individualism and Economic Freedom: There was a stronger emphasis on individualism, private property, and economic freedom. The idea was that a free market and limited government intervention would lead to prosperity and liberty.

    Limited Government: A fundamental principle was that the government’s role should be limited to protecting individual rights, particularly life, liberty, and property.

    Empiricism and Pragmatism: British liberalism, in particular, was marked by a more empirical and pragmatic approach, as opposed to the rationalist and sometimes idealist tone of French liberalism.

    Key Differences:
    Role of the State: French liberalism tends to accept a more active role for the state in ensuring individual freedoms and social equality, while British/American classical liberalism emphasizes limited government and free markets.

    Concepts of Liberty: French liberalism incorporates a broader social dimension (equality and fraternity), whereas British/American liberalism focuses more on individual liberties and economic freedoms.

    Philosophical Underpinnings: French liberalism was more influenced by rationalist Enlightenment philosophy, while British/American liberalism was shaped by empiricism and a pragmatic approach to political and economic life.

    Both strands of liberalism share a commitment to individual rights and freedoms, but they diverge in their views on the role of the state, the nature of liberty, and the means of achieving a liberal society.

    Reply addressees: @BOB37702515 @AutistocratMS

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 23:37:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735081498783391744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1735050316620419299

  • “Without God what can act as a moral anchor”– Diana This is a common confusion

    –“Without God what can act as a moral anchor”– Diana

    This is a common confusion between the claims of religions and the evidence of god’s word and deed in the universe. In most cases we find people defending their scripture and presumption of god, rather than the evidence of god.

    A more exacerbating problem for humans is the sex differences in cognition and valuation, where men comfortably systematize regardless of emotion, and women comfortably empathize regardless of consequences. This means that there is a greater demand for an anthropocentric god among women and cognitively feminine men than there for a deist god and his set of law s for men and cognitively masculine women. In fact, sex differences in systematizing vs empathizing, predator vs prey, over-time vs in-time, capital seeking vs consumption seeking, and responsibility for capital seeking and irresponsibilty for capital seeking … these few variables account for all human variation in behavior. As such all human variation in behavior is variation in sex differences in perception and valuation. So of course we have variation in our moral intuitions. That does not mean that our intuitions are right so to speak, as much as it m eans that some of our intuitions are for ‘now’ and some for ‘later’.

    Now, that said, The Natural Law of Cooperation is what it is. It’s a function of the laws of the universe, and the laws of the universe it turns out consist of just one (presssure results in the ternary logic of evolutionary computation), and the rest are its consequences. (And yes I can enumerate them but I”ll save you that tedium for the moment…) 😉

    So whether you say a) god is a being that gave us the laws of the universe, or b) whether god is an anthropomorphism of the universe, or c) whether the material universe has always existed in a permanent cycle of rebirths, the laws we observe in that universe are the same.

    So whether you take the position of fundamentalism, the position of deism, the position of simple materialism, the Natural Law of Cooperation just lke the physical behavioral evolutionary and logical laws are the same.

    And while you may prefer your anthropomorphism (fundamentalism), and I my Deism (spirituality), or others their materialsm (physical science) – if we agree on the natural laws of cooperation then the excuse for doing so is irrelevant. In fact, we’d need an immoral reason to force others to hold the fundamentalilst, deist, or materialist origin of these laws for reasons that are selfishly psychological and divisive.

    And under the those laws of nature, under that natural law of cooperation, all moral and immoral claims are in fact decidable. And people are simply right or wrong. Even if they do not grasp that being right at small scale and political scale are usually opposites, because information at small scale is avaialbe to us and consequences of our actions determinable, while the opposite is true at political scale.

    So given that there is a set of laws to the universe at all scales, and given that we know the natural law of cooperation, there are no moral claims that cannot be stated as amoral (irrelevant), moral (contributing to capital) or immoral (consuming capital). And the means of conducting our lives results in the natur law, tht given the want, utility, and need of self determination by self determined means, by sovereignty in demonstrated interests, by reciprocity in display word and deed, and by duty to insure all in all of the above, limiting us to markets for cooperation (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, polities, and war), and markets for dispute resolution(argument, duel, courts etc), resulting in meritocracy, productivity, prosperity, and evolution in defeat of a unvierse, solar system, sun, planet, flora and fauna that seem to desire to kill us with regularity. Or, stated inversely, what we really mean is the suppression of oppression in every dimension abailable to man, so that both individually and collectively we have the greatest freedom to make the most of the lives we are born with.

    There is no more relativism. Only differences in moral intuition that serve as terms of our cooperation. Even then some terms are immoral, some amoral (neutral) and moral.

    So we have united science, morality, and god – at least the three variations on god – as consistent … and relatively simple it turns out.

    And as far as I know it is not possible to argue against this unification of science philosophy and religion. ALl that is required is that we update our religions so that they no longer contain the immoralities that they do, and add the moralities that we have discovered.

    And FWIW: there is nothing in my work, or my organization’s work that god would disagree with or object to – and if he did, or someone claims he did, then he is not and cannot be god, because as such he would state a contradiction – falsifying himself as not god but evil, demon, or devil.

    I hope this helps.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @makda_b03

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 17:37:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734990936369762304

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734983510253818311

  • Polygamy is still tolerated in most countries – the problem is very few men can

    Polygamy is still tolerated in most countries – the problem is very few men can afford it. With the economy favoring women (at least at present – it’s not clear that’s true with AI eviscerating administrative jobs) the cost of a ‘stable’ of women is radically reduced. Yet for women, the benefit of sharing a household and man with other women, lowering the cost of each woman’s participation in the household and in maintaining the man, is decreasing. So we are left once again with intersexual relations that are in a hierarchy from permanent to temporary, to fractional.
    The incentive to marry was a produce of agrarianism+herding and the incentive to marry today, in the current economy isn’t really more than just the cost of household income vs individual income.

    Reply addressees: @diegocaleiro @william_lpp

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 16:29:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734973741346504704

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734967384040182218

  • “Sharia is the only way now”– Well I hear this a lot, but it’s just admission o

    —“Sharia is the only way now”–

    Well I hear this a lot, but it’s just admission of not knowing what to do, so falling back on what worked under the agrarian era.

    Sharia is not possible – especially in the west – because not enough of the population can tolerate superstitious religion. The middle east MENA as well as southeast asia can tolerate Islam and Sharia because the avereage IQ of the population is only 83-85. Meaning more than half the population are not capable of logical reasoning, or employment in modern industrial economies.

    In the west where our average (at least among whites) is around 100, that’a full standard deviation higher in IQ. Meaning only about 16% of the european population is unable to participate in modern economies, learn procedures, understand instructions, read manuals, and learn by reading without excessive physical repetition. Even then we struggle with that 16%. And especially with hispanic (high 80s) and black(mid 80s) americans the majority those populations are also less able to learn increasngly abstract concepts compared to europeans and east asians.

    We can however, produce law, our natural law, that prohibits these ‘feminine, abrahamic, and marxist’ immorality. And law does not need to be understood as much as habituated, and explained.

    My work has been referred to humorously my others as ‘white sharia’ or ‘truth fascism’ because it’s more precise and rigorous than either religion or existing laws. So it is quite possible to achieve the superiority of the west cognitively, politically, commercially, and socially, as well as the superiority of traditional civilizations in suppressing the feminine and jewish means of antisocial behavior which is what we see expressed in western civilization’s popular culture.

    We failed to regulate the degeneracy of popular culture but we can do it truthfully with the law without the superstition ignorance and the cosequences of both that plague islamic civilization … at least until islam has a reformation on the scale of the protestant reformation or the confucian reformation, or the buddhis reformation.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @entelechhhy

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 16:20:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734971452254715907

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734959280300724449

  • CHRISTIANITY Simple and Painful. Proto, early, and ancient european civilization

    CHRISTIANITY
    Simple and Painful.

    Proto, early, and ancient european civilization was aristocratic and Conquest and Slavery of lesser peoples were expensive methods of evolving a polity from primitivism to civilization and the great achievements of the Greeks, Romans, and Germanics.

    The middle east had solved much of the problem of the costs of slavery through supernatural religion (compared to european supernormal religion).

    Christianity when imported from the middle east, first through Byzantium, where the Byzantines were in constant contact with the non-aristocratic civilizations understood the utility first, and in particular understood that christianity was a rebellion against aristocracy by the slaves, serfs, underclasses, and women – a resistance movement where they could obtain status from one another rather than by achievement or service to the aristocracy.

    The success of abarhamic religions like the success of the marxist sequence lies in this anti-darwinian system of resistance, rebellion, and the social equivalent of ‘raiding’ – which is the military and political method of islam. Both are incremental system of political, social, and intellectual destruction that destroy civilizational capital becuse of the inferiority of the lesser classes.

    Yet christianity was only successful as “churchianity”, and was germanicized by the europeans, into european trifuctionalism, where the faith, the common and traditional law, and the military aristocracy were all preserved, and the church captured as a holding company for land by the european aristocracy.

    So the end result was slavery, serfdom, freemen, citizens and sovereigns – just as in the ancient world. But the common people: slaves, serfs, freemen, and women had a governing institution that included both education, counsel, and some court functions – in personal, familial, and social arenas. And the military aristocracy had a holding company and literate administrators.

    But they no longer needed to practice slavery conquest and rule nor bear the high cost of doing so as did the ancient europeans, or the middle east.

    So while the church kept the people ignorant and dependent instead of teaching them literacy and independence – meaning they were still slaves by words rather than slaves by force – the cost savings was achieved.

    Unfortunately, as later evidence demonstrated with the printing press and literacy, and the decline of the church as a consequence, the vast unparalleled corruption of the church, and the failure of the church to reform from fundamentalism (literal scripture), into Deism and Natural Law (philosophical religion), despite the Catholic Church’s opportuity in every era – they favored the money not the faith.

    It turns out then that education is the optimum means of producing a social political and military order. But what one is educated in – morality, ethics, natural law, and nationalism – is more important that even the sciences.

    We humans do many things wrong. Becuase we work with ignorance, trial and error as our only guide. But we can, if we seek the truth regardless of cost, and reciprocity regardless of cost, and sovereignty regardless of cost, eventually discover that deism, natural law, stoicism and epicureanism, and the laws of physical universe are the optimum method of existing and evolving in that universe – in the condition of harmony and prosoperity puncuated with the stresses of adapting to our discoveries – and the added stress and effort of dragging along the laggarts who desperately want to feel a sense of understanding and control that suppresses their neuroticism and insecurity by sophistry, magic, and supernatural pretense.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 14:28:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734943257732284416

  • The ethnical innovation of Jesus is quite simple: It’s a revolt against the para

    The ethnical innovation of Jesus is quite simple:

    It’s a revolt against the parasitic elites locally, and against greco-roman reason geographically, and an attempt to create a system of status by doing no wrong, instead of by strength, wealth, family-clan, position, or power.

    The First Principles of Christian Ethics:
    “The elimination of hatred from the human heart”
    “The extension of kinship love to non kin”
    “The exhaustion of forgiveness prior to retaliation”
    “The demand for personal acts of responsibilty by personal acts of charity.”
    “The mindfulness (spirituality) of doing so”
    “The polity (trust) that results.”

    The result is the answer to the hard problem of scale: the prisoner’s dilemma. This is why, ifyou play the moral high ground in almost any game, over time, you will win. This is why christianty was so useful in fomenting the high trust society and preparing the high trust society for the modern commercial civilization – without which it could not exist.

    I am careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    If, as jefferson tried to demonstrate, we convert jesus from a supernatural figure to a philosopher (assuming he was in fact the son of a roman soldier and a jewish prostitute helps in this argument), speaking in the language of the locals (mythicism), attempting to find a solution to the problem of the middle east, slavers, and women given the prosperity created by the greco roman indo europeans, we find he was in fact the end point of religious innovation in the age of transformation. And that between the greek(roman) way (stoics, epicureans, aristotelians, and platonists), that the underclasses could now find a method of self worth, respect, and status in the aristocratic civilization that had conquered and ruled them.

    Disambiguation preserves the good, elimnates the bad, and informs us how we might innovate upon the good in the absence of the bad. This is less certain and efficient than the masculine mind prefers. But it is the only way to discover novel solutions to problems rather than swapping some set of problems under one philosophical model for another set under another philosophical model.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-11 17:36:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734265968296108032

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734258241952194601

  • James Lindsay’s Suggestion for Academic Incentives Note: Given that the term sci

    James Lindsay’s Suggestion for Academic Incentives
    Note: Given that the term science is simply an application of legal testimony, our organization’s proposal is the same regardless of context, which is to use the courts to punish those who publish other than testifiable testimony (science) as doing harm to the public commons of information. This includes charges of sedition against the constitution of natural, common, concurrent law. This (a) causes academic insurance (b) creates a network outside of the academy – which will logically consist of retired academics – that profits from ‘clearing’ the academy of bias and deceit.

    LINDSAY”S SOLUTION
    via James Lindsay @ConceptualJames
    The holy has to be defended from the profane. In a Classically Liberal system that doesn’t mean existing knowledge cannot be questioned, but it does mean it has to resist subversion. Good-faith criticism and bad-faith criticism (ruthless critique) have to be distinguished.

    Academics might not even be equipped for this job, to be honest, but that made them poor guardians of the effective heart of the systems depending on their charge. We’re paying the price for this now and trying to salvage what we can before the library is burned.

    If you’re going to be the high priests of the canon of knowledge, you had damned well better be able to protect that canon’s integrity. Various incentive structures, specialization, etc., led to the academic goal being merely to ADD TO the canon of knowledge. But who defends it?

    There is actually a simple structural reform to this that is clearly necessary. Rather than granting PhDs, tenure, advancement, glory, etc., to academics merely for doing “new” research, academia must start elevating people who successfully do academic cleanup, rigorously.

    There’s a key difference between a Magisterium, which checks against orthodoxy, and what I’m saying here, though. Academia is already a poisoned Mystical Magisterium of Social Gnosticism. That’s rigor according to rationality and especially skepticism (checking against evidence).

    The Library, to use the metaphor, almost deserves to be burned because it’s rotted through with parasitical pseudo-knowledge, critical magick, outright corruption, and nonsense posing as profundity, but there’s too much wheat to burn it all as chaff. This is important.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-11 17:22:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734262451850342400