Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The federal government was funded largely by trade duties and tariffs from the s

    The federal government was funded largely by trade duties and tariffs from the south. The south was more likely to ally with the new territories. The north would have been not only the minority tax supplier but the minority faction in a contest for political power over the continent, between vast agrarians and small northern industrialists. We still have the same issues between coasts and center. Because dense urban immigrant cities generate demand for central authority because of the powerlessness of people under such diversity. The opposite is true of lower population density.

    Reply addressees: @tx_buyer @jjfThompson

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-16 05:55:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702924135859372032

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702707910344618201

  • THE EUROPEANS AND THE ASHKENAZIM: ECONOMIC ORDERS –“…an example of the relati

    THE EUROPEANS AND THE ASHKENAZIM: ECONOMIC ORDERS
    –“…an example of the relationship across national boundaries — an important survival skill in diaspora — but also creates hostility from the locals who don’t have those kinds of connections.”–

    That’s the optimistic take. The locals are dependent upon produced local capital while the ashkenazim were dependent on extracting and trading local capital with remote regions. Two forms of capital. Two forms of liquidity. You can take coin with you when you’re outcast but not then you’re a farmer who has land, or a craftsman who has structures.

    The Ashkenazim preserved separatism and are also forced to be separate becuase of their group strategy that takes advantage of the host while not contributing to it, and quite often harming it, and universally preying upon it. This self induced separatism and prosecution means that they lose any advantage outside of theh community of insurers. And the parasitic nature of their occupations at the upper end of the spectrum (see baiting into hazards), similar to the gypsies at the low end of the criminal spectrum means they cannot afford to defect or refuse to insure other members of the group. It’s also possible because they concentrated liquid capital instead of converting it into productive capital that was almost impossible to liquidate even if easily used for production.

    This may sound horrific unless you understand that europeans followed this strategy militariliy instead of commercially. The difference was between military and political territorial masters of large numbers of the three classes under the limited productivity of landed agrarian economy, instead of a small number of parasitic urbanites extracting from the working, middle classes, and serving the upper clases, which produces of course, a higher return, despite the hatred it encouraged. Why? Usury (300%interest, which is why they were prohibited property -so they couldn’t take it from vulnerable people by engineering defaults), gambling, selling alchool on credit to create indenture, prostitution, drugs, running bars and tavers to shelter the performancde of all three, black market trading, slaving, and endless conspiracies. If you look at the wealthiest europeans an the wealthiest ashkenazim you will still see this difference in parasitic baiting into hazad (financialism, insurance, gambling, entertainment) vs productive investment.

    European history is heroic and in that sense biased and supernormal, but it is still empirical and historical and open to cdriticism that encourages us to reform. But jewish culture relies on mythicism and social cosntruction instead, and is open like their scriptural and legal literature, to continuous justification and revision. I mean, they were the outcasts in the levant, particually from the relocated Mycenaean neighbors (Philistines) who had metalworking while the Jews didn’t (hence David’s sling), which is why the egyptians hired them as clerks, and which is how they developed their tradition of writing – precisely because they would remain loyal to the Egyptians out of self interest because they were so despised locally.

    Anyway, we all live under the hypnosis of the metaphpysics of our ancient group stratgies today. And because of it we do not know our own sins and so we do not reform until we are prohibted frdom them. No criminal gives up his source of criminal revenue without the threat of punishment if he doesn’t.

    Though Europeans do a pretty good job of stopping themselves when we decide to (slavery, colonialsm, ending wars early) while almost no one else does.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @ACertainMan42 @WerrellBradley @Lucas_Gage_

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-15 23:01:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702819924794630144

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702768666318705032

  • Are Tech Sanctions Against China Working? (yes, but…) The new Chinese chip is

    Are Tech Sanctions Against China Working? (yes, but…)
    The new Chinese chip is produced with older 2017 tech, and they are trying to copy the dutch tech necessary for the next generation we use today.

    I’m not confident we can maintain this much of a lead for another decade, but just as we outlasted the soviets, and we are outlasting the russians in ukraine, we are trying to outlast the chinese before the natural consequences of their government, policy, absurd geostrategy, and demographics force either exacerbation of their return to totalitarian isolation in an effort to prevent europeanization (regional states), or more civil inclusion in to the commercial world order by assisting rather than undermining it. The chinese aren’t known for being terribly bright in this matter over their long history for reasons I might explain elsewhere – though no one has quite determined the cultural vs genetic vs institutional distribution of that causality.

    The problem China faces is they’re poor country but they have a huge population, have relatively low wages, suffering the middle income trap, but centralization gives the government extraordinary access to capital, and that govt will subsidize any R&D that promises to catch up to fulfill the CCPs delusions of grandeur. And they can throw that capital, and three orders of magnitude the number of engineers, scientists, and technical laborers at a problem and we simply can’t. And leading capitalist democracies maximizing employent, consumer spending, and luxury benefits will allways be vulnerable to authoritarian capitalist regimes (Fascist) that produce adversarial competition against otusiders in favor of hyperconsumption and luxury of citizens.

    While the chinese population is apparently vastly overstated, and while it’s collapsing at an alarming rate, there are still only 750k ethnic europeans with an average of 100iq against at least 1.2 billion chinese with a 4-5 IQ population advantage, and more docile genetics, and more aggressive parents, and far more disciplined education, that despite rampant cheating and corruption, produces an advantage over europeans in tech even though on a smaller scale per capita than the ashkenazi do in verbal skills.

    Hope this helps.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @DragonGamerWiki @hsu_steve @PeterZeihan @whatifalthist @balajis @pmarca @psychosort @2020Blackstone @MatthewParrott @RichardBSpencer

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-15 16:10:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702716581812355072

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1701972624220262864

  • That’s a common error comparing two population sizes Liberals are to left of cen

    That’s a common error comparing two population sizes
    Liberals are to left of center as libertarians are to right of center. libertarians are smarter than liberals. Republicans are smarter than democrats. And education credentials are an inverted proxy for intelligence given the vast number of women with nonsense degrees who are the dimmest pool in the academy and the reason for degree asymmetry in the sexes. You make less money with many of those degrees that if you didn’t go to college.

    We’ve known this since this nonsense emerged in the early nineties. But it’s a bit of nonsense statistics justifying motivated reasoning, but a meme we can’t seem to suppress.

    Although we have settled the mental illness issue as heavily biased to liberals given it’s a feminine moral disposition with attendant neuroticism.

    Reply addressees: @monitoringbias

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-15 13:30:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702676326404993024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702465790279131379

  • EINSTIEN’S INTELLIGENCE AS A VEHICLE FOR UNDERSTANDING (controversial truth warn

    EINSTIEN’S INTELLIGENCE AS A VEHICLE FOR UNDERSTANDING
    (controversial truth warning)
    If you don’t understand the following please do not assume I err but ask for additional information or clarification.

    Despite his revolutionary achievement, Einstein’s IQ wasn’t particularly exceptional (say as Chomsky’s). You can see this outside of his behavior in physics. And you can see his limitations in how he ‘failed’ so to speak by relying on imagery and thought experiments instead of models – and replatonizing math and physics despite Descartes restoration(rescue) of mathematics via geometry(~measurements) over algebra(~language).

    We are all as much victims of circumstances, where it requires three generations of thinkers to produce a revolutionary innovation in thought, whether it be philosophers, classical music, the other arts, mathematics, or the other sciences. (In my own work I am conscoius that it took us three or four generations to produce an operational logic of social science.)

    What you probably dont know is the sex differences in representation and mathematics, and almost certainly don’t know that his gene pool favors the feminine verbal instead of the masculine systemizing – which should be obvious not only from test results, but from einstein, cantor, and bohr (mathematical platonists), or freud, boaz, marx, gould (pseudoscientists), or the frankfurt school (fictionalism(mythicists)), and the french postmoderns (sophists), or god forbid Rez, Kelsen and Dworkin in law (again, justificationary sophists) all of whom relied on verbal presuasion by the use of fictionalisms, rather than testifiable evidence constructed from first causes, and all of whom were carrying on a logical tradition like all of us do that generally formed sometime just before or after the bronze age collapse, the formation of religion as the first organized instiitution that permitted cross cultural scale.

    This isn’t to dismiss the achievements of the great man, even if he rushed to publish because after meeting with Hilbert (who with a masculine mind, was not so captured by the feminine pictoral). Though Hilbert who did not correct Einstein, while acknowledging Einstein’s invention of the frame, and Hayek who did not correct Keynes, both demonstrated a rather odd behavior of ‘leaving to the responsibilty to the intellectual commons’, rather than distracting from their work. (Something europeans really need to get over.) 😉

    The same can’t be said of Brouwer(math) and Bridgman(physics) nor Popper(empiricism), the intuitionists and the various movements that attempted the same restoration of the european tradition of realism, naturalism, empiricism, operationalism, and testimony across the fields of the four sciences.

    Von Neumann is … scary. Euler is unnerving. Ramanujan is humiliating. I can follow Terrance Tao only so much as to be overwhelmed by his depth, insight, speed, and ability to articlate himself. Today, I’m truly humbled by Ed Witten, who, while I can approximately intuit what he’s doing once he manages to utter a complete sentence, cannot imagine doing it myself or how he did so as such speed. Chomsky, whose cognitive process I feel I can intuit and understand – but his working memory, ability to maintain coherent arcs of verbal density for an hour if necessary, while contextually leaping back and forth between details and narritives with extraordinary recall, appears to me superhuman. I’ve spent some time with David Gordon who has a nearly perfect visual memory of the written word, and when asked niche questions can usually cite book, author, page numbers, and position on the page. And of course, at a cost – he has far more visible aspiness than I do, and compensates with the use of his vault of memory for storing rather off colour jokes, that can keep you entertained on the two hour drive to the airport with ease – as long as your female companion (my executive assistant in this case) can tolerate the continuous blushing.

    Time and place matter. Just as we are saturated with Language models today and their promise, which is putting more R&D IQ points on a problem than I have seen in my now rather extensive lifetime. Einstein had to come up with the frame and put the pieces together – a non trival exercise – but he’d been thinking about the light-and-mirror problem since he was a child – which leads to relativity. Many of us do. As well as the earily problem of volumes and geometry, or concentric wheels on toys, which leads to calculus. (For me it was the frustration that I was certain Induction was impossible, and simply couldnt accept the teacher’s justifications.)

    There is a bit of an Einstein industry that in terms of intellectual history appears a bit silly, because the flowering we saw frothing out of the german capture of educational excellence from the english, creating the second industrial and scientific revolution was producing genius in every field. When, in general, the work from 1830 to 1930 in all the sciences (though clearly not in philosophy) was extraordinary – they had learned to think aobut and measure systems at scale beyond human experience both large and small. Einstein differs from say, Darwin, Menger, Hilbert et al, in that it created a new opportunity for wonder (and no small dose of academic snake oil). And so this new opportunity for wonder soothed the modern mind that Darwin, Mathus, Spencer, Nietzche and the pre-war progressive eugenicists had stressed with far too much uncertainty. Meaning, imposing too much self responsibility among those majorities seeking to avoid it.

    Unfortunately, it was not science that prevailed as the new religion for those masses, but the marxist, neo-marxist, postmodern, feminist, woke sequence that gave promise of freedom not only from responsiblity, but of the effort to adapt to that burden of responsiblity: adulthood, truth before face, reciprocity, defense of the commons, and citizenship.

    One thing I notice is our tendency to perceive intelligence that is similar to ours as less profound than it is, and to admire and judge profound, intelligence that is dissimilar (again on the sex difference axis). I probably should be more astonished by some people in the sciences than I am, because I percieve what they do as merely working harder in a different niche. While I percieve people with the opposite sexual frame as unimaginably more complex. Even in my work I just recognized that outside of the academy I could work on my research as long as was necessary since no one in their right mind would form a dissertation committe for it – but I felt I just worked longer at the problem from my vantage point in time, than anyone had before.

    We can observe this sex difference in cognitoin, or at least men can, in any marriage of any depth with any women of feminine disposition and extraordinary intelligence. Just the one-box, vs lotsa-boxes, and passive firegazing vs verbal recitation, or who remembers what about what, and the way women approach problems resulting in female exceptional production in empirical work (my favorite being Elinor Ostrom’s work on the self regulation of commons as extending the work of hayek’s explanation of informal commons as extraordinarily expensive capital. (What is the price of the loss of ten percent of western high trust normative commons? It would scare you.) Or my favorite example – which lost a century and so few of us know about it – Babbage’s wife’s work documenting his computation, while his obsession with construction prohibited his production of a general theory of computation the consequence of which some PhD candidate will calculate in the next few generations, that while significant will be trivial compared with the postwar production of behavioral pseudoscience thanks to the aforementioned fictionalists. Conversely the male production of systematizing with innovated models transformed by space and time, produce all the expansions of our capture of energy control and understanding of the univers large, human scale, and small.

    This interesting difference in behavior plays out at the margins. And well, you know, you can’t say this bit of truth in public without, like Sommers, getting canceled for it. Despite that the resolution of our differences by their comingling in econmics and politics, in the abence of a separate house for the sexes, would improve dramatically if we educated one another in them, activly sought trades between them, rather than pretended they don’t exist, ending up with this massive moral crisis that divides us because we haven’t.

    Cheers
    Hope you got a useful nugget out of it.
    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-15 02:39:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702512349138071552

  • MAINTAINING DECORUM ON SOCIAL MEDIA The Insitute deals with decidability (think

    MAINTAINING DECORUM ON SOCIAL MEDIA
    The Insitute deals with decidability (think scientific testimony and epistemology), and we have constructed a formal operational logic of cooperation, and applied that to law, constitution, policy, and jurisprudence.

    So this means, in this age of conflict, that we must answer the hard and always emotionally heated, and almost always offensive, conflict-generating topics that divide us, and state them in ‘universally commensurable value neutral language’ – meaning it loooks like we’re writing english, but it’s closer to a verbal description of the ordinal mathematics of behavioral supply demand curves … (“Ah… What, are you saying?”)

    And that’s a sentence that I have no idea if you’ll understand. And to explain it such that you do, I’d have to explain the meaning of logic and the sequence of logics from sets, math, computation, operations, protocols, testimony, and formal language, ordinary language, and ideomatic langauge – which would make your head explode more that it probably has reading the past few sentences. 😉

    But all that nuance aside, we combine two tactics to stay above the fray:

    1 – Via-Negativa(“Don’t Do”): Maintain Institute Decorum (which we publish), using the three categories of (a) avoiding violations of manners, (b) avoiding illegal content (in the USA), (c) explaining and judging moral differences (positions) using the logic of first principles whether physical, behavioral, or evolutionary (the four sciences).

    2 – Via-Positiva (“Strive To Do”): Write as close to the formulae using the methodology of operational construction from first principles (behavioral laws) to explain supply and demand equilibrium as possible while maintaining judicial decidability and neutrality: speak the truth and demonstrate it whether anyone likes it or not – because only by starting from the truth and reciprocity (morality) can we discover a mutually beneficial means of cooperation on mutual mans despite often mutually exclusive ends by aceptance of one another’s differences.

    This is far harder on social media when everyone is seeking attention on one hand and catharsis on the other by baiting the opposition into hazardous conflict provoking emotionally loaded altruistic punishment that we humans are quite obviously genetically predisposed to commit ourselves to by instinct.

    WHAT’S DIFFERENT IN PHILOSOPHY/IDEOLOGY VS LAW?
    Well, in philosophy you search for right and wrong and presume the other party errs. This is a very gentlemanly presumption.

    In law we use a far higher standard by discovering if you’re testifying truthfully, whether you’re seeking reciprocity, and if either isn’t the case, then what irreciprocity (CRIME) are you trying to commit, by either testifying untruthfully or irreciprocally. And, well, we’re sort of the go-to people for the study of the science of human lying and denying. And, well, (OMG) humans are extraordinary liars and deniers and free riders, cheaters, scammers, fruadsters, conspirators, seditionists, treasonists and in such astounding richness and complexity it’s frankly terrifying. 😉

    So we aren’t just telling one or both parties who’s doing the fasehood and irreciprocity to justify their wants and excuses and habits and such, but we’re telling them they’re *bad people*, and often criminals against society, economy, polity, and mankind, which is far worse than disagreements over right and wrong.

    Anyway.
    That’s how we ‘dance carefully’ in this age of suppression of free speech, and the antisocial behavior that results in attempts at undermining, cancelling, and the continued destruction of our civilization from within. 😉

    Our Policy Link:
    https://t.co/ZZIa0ADzfK

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-14 20:42:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702422544991535104

  • TWEETDECK THANKS 😉 Whatever gentleman, whose name and alias I’ve forgotten, ind

    TWEETDECK THANKS 😉
    Whatever gentleman, whose name and alias I’ve forgotten, indirectly suggested switching from https://t.co/hvk5n9AYEo to https://t.co/DYQm0NOEcu so that you have a full twitter workspace, (not dissimilar to my company’s product Oversing), I’m forever in your debt. Even if my laptop battery curses you now and then, 😉

    Now, this sounds a little dim, given that tweetdeck has been around since ’08, was acquired by twitter in ’11, and was converted to a Twitter Pro (blue checkmark) feature in july of ’23.

    Truth is tho, that while I’ve had this account since 09, and while the Institute uses Twitter as it’s primary social media presence, I have, and we have, only really used twitter (despite my ‘prodigious’ posting) since I think ’20. Before that we were using facebook, which, of course, meant we were subject to raiding (organized attempted cancelling).

    And while, here on Twitter, we still suffer these ‘dark triad trolls’ from both the young hard right and left, and we’ve had to defend these organized attacks on two of our Fellows, by misrepresenting their language out of context, and still have one in progress now, we’re less subject to thise ‘raids’ than we were on Facebook.

    See the tweet: “Maintaining Decorum” for how we defend against canceling despite the risks of doing our work in public for the benefit of all.
    Link: https://t.co/t39FZtC3Sn

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-14 19:44:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702408033320534016

  • Genetics of Europeans vs Indians I have had my genetics done. I’m almost entirel

    Genetics of Europeans vs Indians
    I have had my genetics done. I’m almost entirely southern english and northern france because they’re genetically identical, and almost exactly one third European hunter gatherer (atlantic), one third anatolian farmer, and one third steppe herder. I have very light skin, blue eyes, had blonde hair as a child and taupe or light brown hair, with a blonde, red, and brown beard as an adult. Now greying of course.
    I’m R1b1a2.

    –“the people of the Yamnaya culture can be modelled as a genetic admixture between a population related to Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) [d] and people related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG) in roughly equal proportions”–

    That requires we understand the distribution of populations in the neolithic as centered anatolia(black sea), levant(med), north of persian gulf(caspian), and during the ice age three european isolates in spain, southern italy, and the balkans, which then spread north and especially east as the ice retreated. We tend to view the earth with the equator as a horizontal line, but it’s 24 degrees in stead, so the radiation map of the planet as well as the green strips of arable land are on a bit of a tilt mediated by the world island of eurasia that pays the cost of distance from oceans making central asia unfit for man and barely for beast.

    Before the agrarian revolution out of the levant and anatoila the four primary races were as different as east asians and europeans today. I can go through the admixtures but it’s obvious from the genetics.

    The human migration pathway into central asia is from north of the persian gulf, up between the caspian and the mountains, branching into india. So we had that group, the more neotenous caucasian group, and the much more neotenous european expansion along with the eventual scale and coloring adaptation, and then back into europe migration. For what it’s worth, most europeans are mostly the result of corded ware culture. Or said more simply, we’re all germanics to slavs other than the remains of the anatolians in greece southern italy and the islands.

    Anyway.

    GIve it up. Data is data and it’s just getting more rock solid everyd ay.

    Clean your room, your politics, and your civilization. Or be like the muslims and blame your failures on everyone else.

    Cheers
    Curt

    Reply addressees: @Bitter_Earth_ @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-14 05:00:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702185628211851264

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702165248831303801

  • Q: CURT: “Is Karma real?” Great question. As an analogy, both karma and soul ref

    Q: CURT: “Is Karma real?”

    Great question.

    As an analogy, both karma and soul refer to cognitive phenomena, and reduce that complexity to something anyone can understand by supernaturally abstracting it.

    a) we are perfect accountants for reciprocities (moral) and irreciprocities(immoral). We have to be as social superpredators. That accounting system shows up as self image, reputation, and status. And it determines our and others’ access to opportunity for cooperation – and none of us can survive for long without cooperating with others.

    b) Our neurons are subtle and ensure the history of behavior shows up in our facial expression and posture, body language, and even dress, so effectively that people can identify the character of others with reasonable accuracy at a glance. Reputations and Stereotypes, at least in personal interactions, are almost always true.

    c) Others react to this observation of us, react to our behavior, and self image an reputation and status accumulates in our behavior and theirs.

    d) People remember us even after we are dead and in their memories and even whatever marks we leave on the world are like molecules of smoke that dissipate but linger and minutely influence the future through our survivor’s memory, thoughts, words, and actions.

    e) While I would prefer to leave the supernatural open to satisfy my fellow humans that require it, if you ask me to testify I will say that there is no ‘bandwith’ in the universe for the transmission of information by ‘supernatural’ means, and can’t be. Though explaining that to people is rather burdensome. But that said, synchronicity does exist, and the subtlety of what we detect as patterns in reality might as well be considered supernatural because it’s un-introspectable, and rarely explainable.

    f) So I prefer to say that the idea of kharma and the soul are parables that are roughly understandable to all. They roughly represent real world phenomena. And so if they are not scientifically(testifiably) true, they are ‘true enough’, for any purpose we would need them, even if we cannot (and this is the issue) claim they are true (in reality, testifiably, meaning scientifically, because that’s what science means: testifiable).

    I will not deprive my fellow man of his psycholgoical comforts when facing an all but hostile universe, and the vagueries of man and vicissitudes of nature, as long as he does not claim the useful is the same as the true – and in doing so claim the true enough by analogy is true performatively and testifiably given the narrow constraints of the physical universe, and the absence of the possiblity of the supernatural within it.

    In other words “Deliver unto faith that which is the domain of faith, and deliver unto Court that which is the domain of testimony.” The Christians got it close enough to right by saying “God and Caesar”.

    This is the most accurate and honest answer possible for mankind to give. And I would caution (and call a liar) those who disagreed with it or claimed it false.

    Thank you for asking me a hard question with respect and intellectual honesty.

    I hope I have done your respect and honesty justice.

    Affections
    Curt

    Reply addressees: @jero95444

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-14 01:45:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702136473959464960

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702131424206238106

  • (tech drama)(apple store feminist) What’s wrong with Apple, and What’s Wrong Wit

    (tech drama)(apple store feminist)
    What’s wrong with Apple, and What’s Wrong With the USA? A Lesson From Today.

    So after my half day excursion to the apple store, and waiting for two hours, I find that Apple won’t fix my laptop battery. I have to send it out to an authorized repair facility or order the battery and fix it myself. Thankfully there is a shop down the road even if they’re questionable. 😉 My eyesight is no longer helpful in dealing with tiny bits and pieces.

    Meanwhile, my backup computer video is ‘iffy’ and breaks down frequently, and I’m writing this missive in part to test it.

    So I’m going to do frequent saves to an external drive and try to get this document done and delivered tomorrow (very little chance) – probably delivered friday because I have an unmovable medical appointment tomorrow, and even then I have to cancel participation in the morning staff meeting.

    Sidebar: I am struggling a bit here writing this on the new keyboard because while it’s a proper US layout, the distance betweeen the J key (where you rest your right hand) and the delete key is shorter, meaning I keep hitting the lock (logout) key instead of the delete key. But I’ll get used to it. I love these little apple magic keyboards. Unfortunately I can’t find my russian one that has both character sets.

    Now on a separate matter, if you know me I’m extremely confident and gregarious (sometimes disconcertlingly so) and try to treat everyone as a peer (despite that it’s anything but the truth) and find something kind or complimentary to everyone, because it’s good manners and Noblesee Oblige. (It’s also a bit intimidating I’m told.) But if you’re ‘in charge’ for most of your life, you recognize that you have to help people overcome ‘fear of the boss’ one on one, and ‘warm up the room’ for groups – and these are techniques you use, on top of being gregarious, forthcoming, active listening, seeking to understand, and seeking to help, rather than to judge.

    I might touch you on the arm or shoulder (at lest if your’a a man, while I’m talking to you. This is partly learned behavior and partly adopted skill. And so I’m talking to the tech and trying to explain that its ok that I have to go elsewhere for a repair, and this unpleasant and unattractive but thin blonde in her 30s with still active acne or rosacia, is oddly half paying attention to me despite her support customer having left.

    Now I realize by this time that a male engineer acrosss the table who was claiming apple was conspiring against it’s customers (this is not an idiot, he’s just frustrated and venting. And of course as someone who has sold costly stuff for most of his life, and who specializes in incentives, I know he’s going to buy himself a new phone, because he’s got all the signs of money, analytical thinking, and competency. And so I offer to help by explaining the alternatives if he doesn’t. And I text him a set of options. Now, if you knew me you’d understand that i’m elminating his objection to buying a new phone because now it’s a choice rather than a coercion. And of course, he bought the new phone as predicted. And joyfully. And I spent a few moments making the saleswoman and him laugh a bit. (People aren’t really complicated, we’re just a bit dim at understanding how to solve one another’s issues when faced with uncertainty.)

    And because I’m me, I’ve talked in one way or another to a half dozen of the staff, making all of them laugh in one way or another. (This is how you gain certainty over the risk mitigation of the room, but you’d have to read The Primal Primer by our fellow Luke Weinhagen to understand why that is.)

    Anyway, as I’m talking to this tech who is clearly an educated black man in his late twenties, the half listening white woman talks to me like a five year old and points and my hand, does the down justure you use in preschool classes, and tells me not to touch, and that they don’t do that here.

    I won’t tell you what I was thinking beause I’m too kind to really say such things, but I thanked her, told her it was probably a generational thing, gracoiusly giving all parties an out. At which point a normal person would have smiled and moved on. But she didn’t. She began to give me a furrowed brow and a lecture. And the emotion and severity was irrational. She was offended by my behavior. But what behavior? It was clearly before the tech arrived.

    Now, I have a little spiel I give to the infantile when they need disciplining, (Again, Noblesse Oblige) but I don’t care enough about this self absorbed nitwit to expend the oxygen, nor do I want to trouble this young man by doing so with him involved.

    And that spiel ends with “I’m a man of great ability and achievement and I try to better everyone I meet, in any way no matter how small. So you will address me with Mr Doolittle, or Sir, respect, and deference, or I will correct you by whatever means necessary so that neither I, others like me, or the rest of mankind must suffer your infantile rudeness; because as a responsibile citizen that is my duty.” And yes I can roll some variation of that off the tip of my tongue as circumstance demands. This is followed by whatever set of examples on one hand or degredations on the other. And no I don’t ‘Turn it on’ like that unless it’s necessary. And if you experience when I ‘turn it on’ you won’t forget it. I had a darth vader reptutation for a good reason. But as my dear ex wife Allora advised, “Don’t stomp on the bunnies.” Meaning the little people don’t know what they’re doing.

    But on the way home I thought about it a bit. I mean, as I’ve explained in painful detail from every possible direction, despite the origin of abrahamism and marxist-leftism in the Jewish intellectuals, our women, because of their numbers, instincts, magical thinking, and ability to be manipulated, are the cause of the destruction of civilization because they are, or at least too many of them are, evading maturity and adaptation, cowardly and irresponsible – which is clearly unnecessary if you’ve lived with the women in eastern europe who are feminine but neither cowardly or irresponsible – they leave civil order to men. They just cross their arms, and thats all that need be said. Otherwise they’re polite.

    So of course, I’m a short senior citizen (well, I’m the same height as tom cruise – or I was before I started shrinking. 😉 ), And, yes, in transparency, I have both boots and lifts for certain occasions when I’m with a lady who wants to wear heels, but I usually wear flats – italian loafers sometimes, but nearly always one of my dozen pairs of Vans. 😉

    So, this young man could have easily corrected me himself if he felt uncomfortable. (He didn’t. Unless it was coffee breath, which is a distinct possibility. 😉 ) And she could have moved on. But she waited for an opportunity. An opportuntity to assert dominance. She could have spoken respectfully, but she didn’t. She could have smiled but she didn’t. She could have helped rather than criticized. But she didn’t. Because she has such a lovely and cultivated hatred in her for male confidence and ability to capture attention.

    And you all, if you follow me at all, know that I love women (maybe too much) and understand them, and seek to make them feel safe, and despite what I have learned I prefer to keep women on the often undeserved pedestal that the chivalrous to the victorians sought to instill in us, preparing us for majority middle class society and the treatment of one another a customers regardless of sex in both public and private.

    But the more I interact with the milennial and GenZ women and men, I recognize that they are all avoiding responsibilty for the preservation of the high trust society, truth before face, and the need to force one another into responsibility for the private and common. And that women are systematically destroying western civilization just as the neomarxists, postmodernists, and feminists intended when they laid out their plans for the destruction of the west and the genocide of the white family, by the march through the institutions of cultural production. Which despite saying it openly in so many books and following through with their plans, the right does not read (because it’s ridiculous), and the left are largely manipulable pawns, who despite the evidence from Gramsci to Friere claim a conspiracy theory – because they don’t read either.

    So I mean, who among us is willing to save our civilization and our people by restoring the demand for responsibility despite that single women in particular destroy every possible means of using the voting system to restore it – because single women overwhelmingly determine the outcome of elections. Precisely because the entire purpose of the democratic party is to obtain control by depriving people of the necessity for responsibility, and promise them irresponsiblity and ‘safety’ despite that it’s suicide.

    So we have lost the demographic battle. We have lost the voting battle. We are losing free speech, and there for the negotiation and compromise battle. All we have left is the courts (which is a possibility we’re pursuing), or showing up by the millions to demand restoration of our civilization, or continuing to fall increasingly towards civil war or to accept defeat and disappear as rapidly as the Romans.

    There is good reason why most men seem to think we are in the stages of the fall of the Roman empire (to the christians and the barbarians) – it’s because we are. The supernatural christians indoctrinating women and slaves,, are now the marxist-postmodernists indoctrinating women and importing the third world as dependents (slaves).

    Are we really going to do this again? Another dark age? This time with feminine seduction, baiting or women into hazard, by false promise of freedom from the laws of nature, while they emmasculate our men such that they are fearful of defense of the commons, and eradicate our advanced civilization from this earth?

    Well I assume not. But then I’m from Generation Jones (between the boomers and GenX). And yes, I’m a remnant of the aristocratic anglo civilization that’s been forced from power by the left since the 50s through credentialism as a replacemetn for loyalty to civilization and culture. But there must be enough men (I assume) left among us that we can restore and replenish the natural, common, conccurrent law, constitution, and policy including individual responsibiity in the law, and the primacy of family in the constitution, and the suppression and outlawing of all this lying and false promise that so easily captures the malleable minds of young women who, without three or more children NEVER adopt european ethics and morality our ancestors, and the high trust that has made the luxury of their selfishness, pettiness, shallowness, hyperconsumption, political irresponsibility, and antisocial, anti-economic, and anti-political behavior the vehicle for the destrution of our civilization from within.

    I’d much prefer we stop thinking of ourselves as failing as a civlization, when it’s women who are systematically destroying it, and men who are letting it happen, because they won’t pay the high cost of restoring our rule of law, rreciprocity, morality, cooperation, compromise, and the economic and social gains of doing so.

    So should I have corrected that ‘Angry White Woman’? Yes I should have. And in the future I will.

    Meanwhile I need to order a new desktop, ship these two laptops off for repair, get a new cell phone plan, type up a legal document on an ipad, and print it with the ink cartriges I purchsed and drive it to the courthouse without the confidence that I’ve had a few days to sit on my arguments and refine them.

    Thanks for listening.
    I hope you took something of value from it.

    Curt 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-09-14 01:18:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702129585914056704