Curt Doolittle

Form: Question

  • Question Part Three: Why does a monopoly continental government provide better t

    Question Part Three: Why does a monopoly continental government provide better technological, economic, political, and normative results than multiple regional or local governments that specialize to produce commons preferential to members and undesirable by other peoples?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 00:54:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975535993246834688

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212

  • 2) Question Part Two: So, why isn’t it the next evolutionary consequence, to pre

    2) Question Part Two: So, why isn’t it the next evolutionary consequence, to preferentially ‘speciate’ so that we produce commons that suit our desires? Why is ANY monopoly a good? The only monopoly good I know of is scientific (operational) truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 00:52:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975535363132358659

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212

  • Jonathan: Question. Wealth has allowed us to explore our individual differences,

    Jonathan: Question. Wealth has allowed us to explore our individual differences, pursue individual preferences, and all but eliminate the dependence upon family. So why is it not deterministic that we will develop demand for separate states to further ends that we can now afford?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 00:49:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975534716618145793

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973617420366643212

  • Which U.s. Allies Would Back Up Their “support” With Actual Troops If America Was Attacked?

    There are people with more understanding of field capacity than I have, but as far as I know the only people (a) reading and willing, (b) able to contribute whatsoever, are the British. Unfortunately the british vision of training is going home for dinner at 5:00pm (which our soldiers complain about endlessly.)

    The French undermine Americans (they undermine Europe as a whole) at every opportunity. They will never participate in our defense. They are as likely to side with the enemy as help us. The aussies can fight but they’re far away, and small in numbers.

    We learned a great deal from Libya. Europe can handle a bit of civil unrest but is otherwise entirely defenseless. The military is little more than a social service program to reduce unemployment.

    The British and French are nuclear powers.

    Germany is down there with Indonesia and Canada – a military in pretense only

    Worse, European Armies don’t train and can’t fight.

    https://www.quora.com/Which-U-S-allies-would-back-up-their-support-with-actual-troops-if-America-was-attacked

  • Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each other in corporations to th

    Women gossip to undermine alphas – and hen peck each other in corporations to the point where they are mutually self destructive. Do they conspire by intent, common interest, or genetic disposition?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 20:50:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975474446160023552

    Reply addressees: @hbdchick @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975474175367401473

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @hbdchick @TOOEdit This is a justification. All groups share developmental, demographic,and geographic advantages, institutionalize and exploit them. CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTEREST != CONSPIRACY OF INTENT but the OUTCOME is the SAME.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975474175367401473

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @hbdchick @TOOEdit This is a justification. All groups share developmental, demographic,and geographic advantages, institutionalize and exploit them. CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTEREST != CONSPIRACY OF INTENT but the OUTCOME is the SAME.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975474175367401473

  • Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying

    Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read; “Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that. And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood. However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here. So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector? And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close? Thanks brother 😉

  • Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying

    Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read; “Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that. And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood. However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here. So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector? And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close? Thanks brother 😉

  • Why does the national debt matter if after inflation it’s largely a wash because

    Why does the national debt matter if after inflation it’s largely a wash because it serves largely as a defense against inflation by institutions?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 00:28:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974804552871546882

    Reply addressees: @PeterSchiff

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974778343873830914

    IN REPLY TO:

    @PeterSchiff

    That was quick. Today the funded portion of the national debt, which is just the tip of the national debt iceberg, surpassed 21 Trillion. Unfortunately it will break 22 Trillion before year end.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974778343873830914

  • If I make statements that are consistent, correspondent, coherent, reciprocal, a

    If I make statements that are consistent, correspondent, coherent, reciprocal, and fully accounted, then why must I say something NEW in order to say something TRUE? Each generation restates wisdom literature in generational prose. Hence persistence of paradigms over generations.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 22:20:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974772366130794498

  • If I make statements that are consistent, correspondent, coherent, reciprocal, a

    If I make statements that are consistent, correspondent, coherent, reciprocal, and fully accounted, then why must I say something NEW in order to say something TRUE? Each generation restates wisdom literature in generational prose. Hence persistence of paradigms over generations.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 22:20:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974772338167353357

    Reply addressees: @DougJanack

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/971020942322421760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DougJanack

    On the likening of #jordanpeterson to Marshall McLuhan: can anyone point to ONE original idea of Peterson’s? Seems like a blend of Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Northrop Frye served in a reduction of right wing conspiracy theory.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/971020942322421760