Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • MOST HELPFUL EXPLANATION I’VE EVER PROVIDED FOR STRONG WOMEN? —“This is quite

    MOST HELPFUL EXPLANATION I’VE EVER PROVIDED FOR STRONG WOMEN?

    —“This is quite possibly the most helpful thing you have ever posted (at least for me).”—

    Women fear and reject us (men) all the time, for a zillion reasons every day. And we don’t like it really. Especially crazy chicks (the vast majority of women) when we are just trying to be friendly or get along, or learn, or whatever.

    One of the things that makes us feel emotionally and intellectually and socially safe is to be around women who aren’t ‘fragile’. Strong men like women who are strong.

    **Being a man around women is a little like being a gorilla in a glass-shop: everything is really easily broken if we aren’t really careful at all times.**

    Strong women make you feel ‘safe’ that you can talk and act like your natural gorilla-self without fear that the glasses will break (the crazy chicks will get over excited). And the crazy chicks will rally and shame other women and god forbid, other gorillas to punish you, for accidentally breaking a goblet, just cause, after all, you’re just a gorilla.

    I mean, that’s the reality of it. It’s that simple. That’s why strong men like strong women.

    Women often wish men thought more like them and men wish women thought more like them. We all wish others would think more like us. I mean, everything is easier the more similar that we are.

    But men are faster, stronger, and extremely dangerous super-predators. and when we get strong women around us we feel safer. Weak men want less strong women. Because if we don’t feel STRONGER then we don’t believe women will be attracted to us. (And they aren’t).

    So it’s a totally logical thing we’re talking abut here. Men want strong women that they wont break, and get in trouble for breaking (or lose opportunity for sex by breaking). And on the other hand, men don’t want women that are so strong that they won’t be attracted to us. The thing that works against mankind, is that women are so attracted to gorillas at the expense of everything else (no matter what they say, that’s the data), that women force regression toward the mean, because impulsive aggressive alphas aren’t as useful as un-impulsive, cunning alphas. So without monogamy, assortative mating, and property rights, women will cause dysgenic reproduction. And without assortative mating you get the middle east: invariant dysgenia holding at the mean.

    So that’s the truthful narrative, not the fallacy that’s cast by feminists.

    —“I also think men do have that whole scaling Everest thing. So something not easily obtained is worth working toward.”—

    Let me reframe this a bit: Men are scared. We are disposable and we know it. We are constantly threatened by permanent loneliness that can easily drive us to suicide. We mature later, and die earlier. In exchange we are stronger and faster, less sensitive and more specialized. We are, each of us, an experiment that can succeed or fail.

    About a third of us are undesirable as providers or gene suppliers, and about another third only marginally desirable as providers, not gene suppliers. Men try climb everest in order to capture the best genes that they can. It’s not complicated.

    And, worse, just as women must lie to themselves to control their paranoid impulses for acceptance in the tribe, lest not be able to seek rents when needed against fellow tribe members, men must lie to themselves so that they continue to work in the service of their genes despite the near total likelihood of failure.

    Men look in the mirror and see much better visions of themselves than others do, and women look and see worse than they do – the mirror always lies. And it must, or we would never keep the relentless pursuit of the interests our genes. Because what is rational in real time, is inconsequential to the intergenerational requirements of genes.

    This is why women can collect so many men to help them with so may different aspects of life without actually giving them sex, but merely the most remotest of chances that sex and affection are possible. Because men must play ever option available to them. And the lower on the curve they are, the more important are those options. And the more desperate the man the more aggressive he can become in pursuit of them – his genes drive him to reproduce, and his reason is a mere mouse riding an elephant of intuition, that does everything possible to lie to the mouse in order to get what it wants.

    I think of the elephant of intuition as blind, deaf and dumb and reliant on the mouse of reason. Intuition wants satisfaction for all intents and purposes must feed upon chemical satisfaction, and it only gets chemical satisfaction from rewarding the unconscious genes. The rider is a device for getting satisfaction. Everything is a compromise between the blind deaf and dumb elephant that has no problem lying to the rider, and the rider has eyes and ears and can speak and control the body, but little else.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 06:12:00 UTC

  • PUTIN CHANGES TACK – BACK ON TRACK AGAINST THE CATHEDRAL Now, as I said, he play

    PUTIN CHANGES TACK – BACK ON TRACK AGAINST THE CATHEDRAL

    Now, as I said, he played it poorly. He could have easily acquired the east and not put Russian economy in a tailspin.

    But as of yesterday he is back on the ‘western ideas have failed’ and the european ‘new world order’ is a failure. All that happens is that the USA creates worse circumstances again and again.

    This message has been selling to most of the world.

    If he had purchased eastern Ukraine with oil and gas (as I recommended), the locals would have loved the idea, and he would have had an IDEAL client-state, as is Germany: wealthy but dependent. Instead, he restarted the cold war. And he clearly doesn’t understand American Morality of altruistic punishment: WE WILL NEVER, EVER, STOP – EVER, against a moral violation by our own (white people). So the american strategy will be to cause enough pain that Putin becomes internally weak.

    Because in a corrupt mafia state, held together by money and power, not morality and rule of law, there is easily another sitting behind you waiting to take it from you.

    I turned on Putin entirely because of his abuse of Ukraine. But in no small part because I AGREE WITH HIS CRITICISMS OF THE WEST. I disagree that Russia provides the world with any value, and that the world can learn anything from Russia. But I do not disagree with his criticism of the Cathedral.

    Because I am also a critic of the Cathedral.

    The difference is that I would use rule of law and truth telling and he would use bribery and violence and corruption as an alternative to the Cathedral’s New World Order (of cosmopolitan construction)

    AND I AM RIGHT AND HE IS WRONG. PERIOD.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 05:32:00 UTC

  • POPPER HAD IT BACKWARDS – WESTERNERS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG (is this then, a refor

    POPPER HAD IT BACKWARDS – WESTERNERS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG

    (is this then, a reformation of Criticial Rationalism? )

    Popper had it backwards and was a Platonist himself. The problem is not in the discovery of “the nature of things”, but to eliminate the anthropogenic bias endemic to all human thought whether to our reason, memory or perception.

    Telling the truth is easy. It’s not telling a lie, acting as a vector for a lie, or failing to grasp that our intuition lies on behalf of it genes, or errs because of cognitive

    limitations during our evolution that is the problem.

    Had popper and Russell and others understood that it is not the mind of God that was philosophy’s task, and that scriptural interpretation was the method they were applying by the study of language, and instead, they had sought as did science, to remove error, rather than the verbal chimera of truth, the socialists and feminists and Keynesianism may have been unable to destroy western civilization.

    WESTERNERS HAD IT RIGHT ALL ALONG: TRUTH.

    And in an attempt to seize power from the state, we adopted justification.

    And that was our failing.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 10:18:00 UTC

  • WHY DO WE SEE POLAR OPPOSITION TODAY? APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE I’m sorry to intrude

    WHY DO WE SEE POLAR OPPOSITION TODAY?

    APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE

    I’m sorry to intrude on your poetic speech with my painful, oft turgid, analytic, alternative, but I thought this might provide you and others with another way of looking at the issue as if there are two sides.

    EXPLANATION

    In all multi polar systems, just as in all majority democracies, we see a major party (dominant alliance of interests) and a contesting party (resistance to the dominant alliance of interests) and all other parties(alliances) are statistically irrelevant.

    There is nowhere in life that this is not true. (I think there is a term for this effect, but it escapes me at the moment.)

    In most of history the military (aristocracy) as been the primary influence, and various religious organizations constitute the opposing force.

    But once we developed industry the economic power of business, industry and finance produced greater influence than the church and state could muster.

    Once the church was eliminated by Darwin, Science, The Academy, long subservient to the church, took over the church’s role as myth-maker. (Unfortunately just as the cosmopolitans and women were freed from cultural constraints under universal suffrage, ).

    The craftsmen (labor) attempted to ally with the Academy and State but Industry rebelled taking jobs away. But for some time the academy controlled the state via labor.

    The socialists and feminists were successful in forming an alliance with the academy to take over the government and push the military aristocracy from power. They were able to do this mostly because of the combination of media and postwar consumption, combined with the geographic expansion of the united states western territories as nearly free land. Plus the cost of fighting communism gave the academy and their desire as a vehicle for expansion of their power.

    In all these organizations oligarchies do form. But there always will exist four organizations: craft (without power), priesthood/academy(gossip as a moral weapon of power – especially in the west where altruism is the high chivalric virtue), the organization of production (remunerative incentives), and the martial aristocracy.

    What we see is a conflict between the four powers to control institutions.

    We live in a malevolent theocracy of academy and state reliant mostly on numerological pseudoscience to justify selling off consumption of the commons, in exchange for dysgenic expansion that increases their supporters.

    Theocracies, like corporations do not care about families, they are about power.

    Aristocracy is a family business.

    Families matter.

    SO WHAT?

    So there are always four dominant forces (alliances) reflecting the four possible means of coercion (none, gossip, trade, and force), and these forces battle over whatever institutions exist in any civilization in order to expand their power. But as always, because each follows the best use of power, the end result is always a dominant and resistance group, with the reset nearly invisible because they are immaterial.

    I think what I try to bring to the table is the fact that these four strategies (if the first ‘none’ can be considered a strategy), reflect reproductive strategies, and that the masculine (tribal) feminine (universal) and the commercial (selfish or neutral), battle for control of institutions that give preference to their methods and biases, and therefore their genetic preferences.

    So Red has evolved into the aristocratic meritocratic, slowly reproducing, high investment, nuclear and absolute nuclear family of the northern europeans that reflects the male reproductive strategy where insurance is denied in order to force productivity: a eugenic tribe. And Blue has evolved into the equalitarian, rapid reproduction, low investment, traditional and single parent family, where insurance is provided by the state, in order to ensure as many offspring survive as possible. And each has collected the allies available to pursue it’s ends. This is why women dtermine elections: they are the only gruop that is not balanced. women and minorities vote for dysgenia, and men and married women vote for eugenia (keeping their own production.) And really there isn’t more to it than that.

    Democracy failed the moment it changed from one FAMILY ONE VOTE to one INDIVIDUAL one vote. Because the familiy – particular the nuclar family – is by virtue of mate selection under monogamy, a compromise of reproductive strategies within which the majorty of us are relatively equal. But by converting to an individualist society rather than familial, we removed our compromise between competing reproductive strategies from the family, and elevated it into the state, where it is just a competition between the male eugenic and the female dysgenic and nothing else. There is no reason to be had since the only possible compromise can be constructed outside of government.

    I could write volumes more on this but it’s enough to get the point across:L

    1) Judicial Law must apply to individuals because individuals act.

    2) Governmental “Law” (contracts for the production of commons) must represent families or insufficient common interests exists for any such institution to choose solutions that satisfy a common interest.

    For these reasons universal democracy must always end in socialist tyranny where women can bear their offspring and place the burden of their upkeep on the state (men). This has to do with simple numbers, and simple genetic interests. A minority of males and a majority of females are better off constructing the greatest rents possible to feed dysgenic reproduction and the minority of productive people who they (and evolution) would prefer to choose eugenic (meritocratic) reproduction are merely farmed by the unproductive.

    Uncomfortable truth but truth none the less.

    (Note: I don’t mean that ALL our behavior is entirely in our genes as much as our class (reproductive value) is evidenced by in our genes and we gravitate to the strategies that suit our genes. )

    Curt Doolittle

    http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/#comment-1283725

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 10:05:00 UTC

  • RETURNING ARISTOCRACY, AND THEREFORE TRUTH, TO THE ACADEMY (worth repeating) My

    RETURNING ARISTOCRACY, AND THEREFORE TRUTH, TO THE ACADEMY

    (worth repeating)

    My preference would be to teach War, Politics, Law, Economics, Finance, and Propertarian philosophy as a curriculum in all universities so that the Cathedral possessed internal competition. And it would restore male female balance to the Academy’s numbers of graduates.

    I should add to that that in high school or in college, either one, we should restore, grammar, rhetoric and testimony.

    if we taught grammar, rhetoric and testimony, within a generation that would restore western civilization.

    “What color is the cube”

    “From this angle I see two sides of the cube, and those two sides are white”

    “So the cube is white”

    “No, I cannot testify to that, I can only testify to seeing two sides of the house, and they are white”.

    You see, warriors cannot add imaginary content to observations because people will die, or opportunities will be lost, if they do. So testimony evolved in the west out of the cult or raiders, and the rituals of initiatic warriors.

    The truth is enough.

    But only if people know the difference between observation and imagination.

    Filling in the blanks is lying.

    You don’t fill in the blanks. Because imagination contains bias.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 05:08:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS: ARE MEMBERS BIASED AGAINST THE ENTRY OF CONSERVATIVES; and second, is

    http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicansTHREE THOUGHTS: ARE MEMBERS BIASED AGAINST THE ENTRY OF CONSERVATIVES; and second, is there a bias toward support of left conclusions in research by those members; and third, are members with a bias drawn to the discipline of psychology?

    It’s a specialization. The military is a specialization.

    Psychology, if not for its complete abandonment of freudianism, and adoption of Operationism would have perished as a pseudoscience, as has social science, if it had not reformed. As it has reformed, it has moved more to the center. In practical terms Haidt appears to function as a classical liberal libertarian today (not a libertine libertarian), despite his left sentiments.

    But its merely a specialization. If we took military strategy and tactics, and put it into the university system, instead of in the war colleges, you would see that most were conservative. (in fact that’s a pretty good idea).

    Moral biases lead us to specializations where we can exercise our moral biases.

    As I became self aware, I realized that I write the particular brand of philosophy I do because my highest moral priority is conflict prevention. I am very, very good at conflict, but that is partly because I dislike it so much, that I want it to end.

    It so happens that in order to write something reasonably scientific about the subject of philosophy – particularly ethics and politics – that my cognitive bias is terribly useful. Because law is the philosophy of conflict resolution.

    So its logical that psychology will move to left of center, as the scientific evidence forces center bias, while the people drawn to the subject continue to demonstrate left bias.

    I am fairly sure that if we required operational speech in all disciplines we would see the same motion as we have in psychology: toward a reformation and drive back to the classical liberal center.

    But I doubt that we would change the preference for those with progressive (female reproductive strategy) bias to the field.

    My preference would be to teach War, Politics, Law, Economics, Finance, and Propertarian philosophy as a curriculum in all universities so that the Cathedral possessed internal competition. And it would restore male female balance to the Academy’s numbers of graduates.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 04:23:00 UTC

  • ON THE SINGLE ENGINE (ANGLO) WORLD ECONOMY I’ve followed Roubini for many years

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-growth-and-weakening-global-economy-by-nouriel-roubini-2014-10#qijbgttUhPYimsC2.99″—ROUBINI ON THE SINGLE ENGINE (ANGLO) WORLD ECONOMY

    I’ve followed Roubini for many years now, mostly because I think using the same frames of reference (incentives rather than statistics), and so I understand him more clearly than I do most other (correlative) economists. I am never interested in up-sides. That is the job of people with specialized knowledge of sectors, and instead I’m interested in politics and entrepreneurship. And Roubini’s ideas emphasize political and entrepreneurial risk, rather than financial opportunity.

    This is a short but accurate article on the state of the world economy., I tend to follow Roubini Global Economics and George Friedman (See The Next 100 Years George Friedman) and advise those who are likewise interested in the political and entrepreneurial cycle (rather than financial opportunity) to do likewise.

    Here are a few comments from others:

    IT”S TRUE, NOT MORAL, NOT PREFERABLE, BUT TRUE

    —“Roubini is a realist and he is using the basic operating assumptions of the world economy in his analysis. These assumptions include two crucial monetary facts, namely, 1. the status of the US Treasury bill as an unrivaled store of value (a status unaffected by the 2008 crash and all its consequences), and 2. the centrality of the City of London in global currency markets. The US stores value, produces liquidity (through QE and ultra-low policy rates), and consumes other countries’ manufactures with the money. The UK creams off huge profits from the froth of exchange (and their central bank has also produced a good bit of liquidity to keep the financial markets rolling, I might add). Both these functions are systemically necessary to the current pattern of the global economy, and they have have persisted since the mid-1970s with only incremental changes owing mostly to the rise of China and the consequent relativizaton of the importance of Japan. We may find these two crucial operating conditions aberrant from the viewpoint of neoclassical economics, or just plain unjust from the viewpoint of equality between nations, but they exist, they function and so far, they have only been perturbed, not altered, by the tremendous crisis of the last six years.”—

    THE PROBLEM

    My problem with this is that it creates very bad behavior in the world, and that is why the empire must fall.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 01:58:00 UTC

  • SIMPLICITY: TRUTH IS ENOUGH Free speech in a culture of men who tell the truth i

    SIMPLICITY: TRUTH IS ENOUGH

    Free speech in a culture of men who tell the truth increases the velocity of cooperation and production. Free speech in a culture of men who systemically lie, by sophisticated means, temporarily increases consumption at the expense of trust and the consequential increases in innovation and production. In the 20th century science is somewhat immune from lying if not from their fascination with non-truthful speech, because so little (other than global warming) has been profitable to lie about and because like doctors and lawyers they protect their ‘ticket’ by persecuting offenders. It is this same ethic that is missing from politics. As such, without a systemic means of policing, free speech is simply a legalized endorsement of systematic lying for personal, organizational, political, and tribal gain. The only means we have of such a defense at the extra-professional scale of general political speech is the law. We may never be able to speak or know the ultimate truth on any matter, but thanks to science we have learned how to speak truthfully, and truthful speech is s required wherever others may come to harm, and politics, as the organized application of violence, is by definition the use of harm whenever used deceitfully.

    Truth is enough The law is enough. Property rights are enough. And voluntary Exchange is a sufficient vehicle for the achievement of human wants and needs.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 16:43:00 UTC

  • FB, GOOGLE AND THE PROBLEM WITH MAJOR BRAND ADVERTISING You see, Google merely t

    FB, GOOGLE AND THE PROBLEM WITH MAJOR BRAND ADVERTISING

    You see, Google merely transferred the money spent on yellow pages to a new medium, that provided, like shareware, free advertising (search results – the white pages), and better placement (yellow pages), and much better placement (advertisement position on the page).

    Now I have no idea why google tolerates all these local (sh_t) yellow page listings other than it generates click money for them at the expense of users, instead of creating a very clear means of searching for local services based upon your address, that is edited as the yellow pages were, that places some demand for legitimacy upon the people making the listings. Because it’s impossible to find almost anything local still. So that seems like a ‘miss’ because it’s a hole someone can hurt them with in the future. (Citysearch was awesome and I still miss it)

    But back to the broader picture, this plan to transform the yellow pages business onto the net was fantastic. However, it did not help attract major brands. Major brands cannot find success on google or Facebook, nor can these platforms be used to create local draws – events.

    Next, because they were designed for consumers, it’s very hard for major brands to use these platforms to advertise to businesses that actually want to see those ads. And yes, there are things that businesses want to subscribe to. If I could see the advertising equivalent of Pinterest, as a user, and select what promises

    Now, I’m living in a world where I see mobile as a bit of a misallocation of capital that will come to an end like the housing boom. (or the iPad era). It’s only interesting because like the era where americans immigrated germans into the midwest or the gold rush era in California, or the current migration of Chinese out of the serfdom of rice cultivation.

    So I’m giving some thought to a more static world than we have seen for the past two decades.

    And I’m more interested (as I have been for some time) in big brands, able to sell complex value propositions rather than trying to get attention from the consumer with A.D.D. from overstimulation.

    Now, if we had very detailed profiles on individuals, even if you couldn’t see their names, and you could publish Pinterest-style information (Rich I mean), as a major brand, I would think that would be interesting. I mean, we have all these trivial little publications that try to reach out to people in industries. What if that was always available to them like a separate tab within Facebook?

    We don’t want interruptions. But we all like diversions. And advertising property constructed can be a great diversion.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 10:11:00 UTC

  • TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN To some degree, we are confused: the scient

    TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN

    To some degree, we are confused: the scientists developed the method of truthful speech out of necessity AND out of a lack of malincentives. The problem that other disciplines face is that either the externalities produced are somewhat limited, such as the use of mathematical platonism, or the incentives to lie are greater – far greater – than any incentive to tell the truth: such as in politics, law, advertising, the academy in general, or for public intellectuals.

    So what we have done is created an asymmetry of incentives by our incorrect, inappropriate, and morally mistaken advocacy of free speech.

    It is not that we must possess free speech, it is that we are prohibited from bringing a verbal, written, and conceptual product to the market for the consumption of ideas, without requiring that we warranty that good, in an attempt to insure that we do not harm ourselves through excessive warranty.

    However the jury is in on this matter, and instead of spending two centuries defining truthful speech under the limits of law of warranty, we have spent two centuries learning how to improve our lies. And we have, as evidenced by the pseudoscientific efforts of the marxists, and pseudoscientists, and pseudo-rationalists, dramatically improved our ability to lie.

    But since the cause of this continuous improvement of the technology of lying is something we know, and we know how to fix, then there is little stopping us from fixing it.

    All we need to do is return to treating speech as a product and the commons as property, and one may not pollute the commons any more than one may pollute the land.

    It will take very little time, less than two generations, to teach people to speak the truth again.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:18:00 UTC