Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act

    Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.

    What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.

  • THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEE

    THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEED TO HELP US ACT

    Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires.

    There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.

    What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority.

    In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others.

    If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority.

    So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status.

    Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere.

    The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere.

    And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere.

    SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies.

    And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear.

    Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions.

    Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class.

    I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 03:03:00 UTC

  • MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN. Group solidarity, mem

    MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe.

    Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members.

    For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal.

    It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium.

    So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about.

    In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests.

    There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies.

    SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes.

    This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias.

    Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics.

    Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future.

    For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12.

    Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women.

    There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity.

    Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must.

    This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth.

    The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women.

    You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies.

    We do not reason we fight.

    Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership.

    Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce.

    Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 02:32:00 UTC

  • The Difference Between Personal-Preferential and Political-Decidable Philosophies

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas. So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act. But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war. This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict. So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science. It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.

  • The Difference Between Personal-Preferential and Political-Decidable Philosophies

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas. So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act. But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war. This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict. So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science. It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.

  • Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others.

  • Converting From Accusations of Falsehood To Accusations of Fraud.

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know. So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’. And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what leftists do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars. We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to. And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason. Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies. But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception. The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from. But why do some of us have this courage and others not? It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing. It is because, for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail. It is because, for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation. In other words, because some of us are better at deciding than others.

  • Men, Women, And Why Men Must Fight To Constrain Our Women.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe. Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members. For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal. It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium. So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about. In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests. There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies. SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes. This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias. Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics. Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future. For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12. Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women. There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity. Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must. This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth. The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women. You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies. We do not reason we fight. Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership. Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce. Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Comments

    Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

  • Men, Women, And Why Men Must Fight To Constrain Our Women.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe. Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members. For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal. It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium. So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about. In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests. There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies. SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes. This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias. Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics. Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future. For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12. Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women. There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity. Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must. This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth. The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women. You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies. We do not reason we fight. Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership. Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce. Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Comments

    Women lean Democratic by 52%-36%; men are evenly divided (44% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 43% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP). Gender differences are evident in nearly all subgroups: For instance, Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). Democrats hold a substantial advantage among all unmarried adults, but their lead in leaned partisan identification is greater among unmarried women (57%-29%) than among unmarried men (51%-34%).

  • We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. Th

    We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas.

    So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act.

    But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.

    This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war.

    This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict.

    So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science.

    It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 06:04:00 UTC