Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542558043 Timestamp) IDEALS VS LIMITS by Bill Joslin The notion of “ideal and unlimited” pertains to moral foundations asserted as universal and well… An ideal…. Opposed to the notion that all concepts exist with in limits (boundaries and context). By doing so, following a moral foundation which doesn’t acknowledge proper conditions which allows that action to exist has said action producing different and often opposite effects (ideal morals often result in immoral outcomes )

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542495373 Timestamp) —“You do not “choose a side” you pursue a genetic bias and continuously optimize.”—Micah Pezdirtz

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542557719 Timestamp) GOVERNING IS SIMPLE IF TRUTHFUL AND DIFFICULT IF DECEITFUL AND CORRUPT by JG Garner Agreed. Black and white. Dark or light. North or south. East or west. I read a book a few years back. A book well known to many. I will paraphrase the general idea. The author wrote governing is not hard. It is easy. The corrupt make it complicated. The compromised make the waters murky. It’s simple. Is it good for the nation? Is it good for the economy? Does it weaken us? Do we want those convicted of the most heinous crimes to still breath. As long as they live, they could be amongst us “free men” again. I’ve provided a small paragraph on an entire chapter. But you get my point. Things should be pretty cut and dry. In the criminal justice system we now look at the accused in a sympathetic view. Was his life hard? Did his parents beat him? Ect. The only thing we need to unwind is was a crime committed? Did the accused commit said crime? Is the victim dead or injured.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542557522 Timestamp) THE NATURAL ORDER by Bill Joslin Patriarchy is older than humans. Patriarchy evolves naturally because nature rewards ability and action (and nothing else). Patriarchy is driven by female sexual selection in all animals (including humans until the counter culture). Females with offspring produce demands (food, protection, shelter etc). Males provide supply (build shelters, provide protection, find food etc) and limits to consumption. Men are better equipped to secure communities (and nations) than women. Further to that men are expendable (do not produce children, can mate in seconds then die etc – where as women need gestation time and to raise children i.e. expensive) thus men are a better choice for dangerous work (protections, hunting, high-risk occupations). Women who chose men who are better able to provide and this increase their likelihood to survive. Those who choose differently will not thrive. Those men better disposed to these task will rise above others. This results in patriarchy. Patriarchy will always rise, if not explicitly it will be implicit (even the modern feminist manifestation only exists because of the support by a stack of powerful men ) When our laws take in consideration natural phenomena and also what undergirds these phenomena (survival strategies) then a proper patriarchy will be restored. A proper aristocracy will be restored. Islam won’t do this. Why? It’s a River Delta survival strategy adapted to a desert people (raider’s strategy). It scales up well, but crumbles under its own weight and tends to destroy human flourishing. Anglos got it right – velocity via natural law (judge discovered law), empiricism and shallow -via negativa- moral foundations (which results in velocity). This produces the best survival strategy Where this has failed has been universalism and idealistic moral foundations both of which are a result of Abrahamic rhetoric – the first middle eastern invasion of Europe .

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542556204 Timestamp) ARYAN MYTH, ABRAHAMISM AND THE BEGINNING OF THE EUROPEAN CULTURAL NEUROSIS by Daniel Gurpide (worth repeating) The Indo-Europeans introduced not only practical techniques for the appropriation of the physical and biological world but also, above all, a new technique for organising socio-political and juridical relationships. It developed concepts such as ‘genos,’ ‘polis,’ and ‘imperium’—in their classical, medieval, or modern translations—and this constituted the difference that came to define Indo-European identity when confronted with other populations, cultures, and civilisations. Such a way of organising society derived from a particular Weltanschauung. This world view, expressed in all fields of human activity, gave birth to a cosmogonic myth, around which Indo-European man understood, explained, and organised the universe and history. Its unique character is better perceived when contrasted with the mentality and culture of the Book of Genesis. The latter narrative, in its religious and secularised forms, continues to obsess contemporary Western civilisation. What is most striking when studying Indo-European cosmogony is the solemn affirmation, found everywhere, of man’s primacy. Indo-European cosmogony places a ‘cosmic man’ at the ‘beginning’ of the current cycle of the world. It is from him that all things derive: gods, nature, living beings—and man himself as historical being. In the Indian world, the Rig Veda names him Purusha; his name is Ymir in the Edda; and, according to Tacitus, he was called Mannus among continental Germans. For the Vedic Indians, Purusha is the One through whom the universe begins (again). He is ‘naught but this universe, what has passed and what is yet to come.’ In the same fashion, Ymir is the undivided One: and by him the world is first organised. His own birth results from the meeting of fire and ice. Kalidasa’s poem Kumarasambhava—one of the summits of Indian poetic reflection on the traditions of the Vedas—marvellously explains the allusions of the Indo-European cosmogonic myth. The opposition between Purusha (cosmic man) and Prakriti (which corresponds, approximately, to natura naturans) is revealing. Through being able to see without depending for this on Prakriti, Purusha is at the origin of the universe. Since the universe is but indistinct chaos, devoid of any sense or significance, it is only by means of the outlook and word of cosmic man that the multitude of beings and things may emerge—including man fully realised as such. Purusha’s sacrifice is the Apollonian moment at which is affirmed the principium individuationis—‘cause of all that exists and shall exist’—until that time when the world will crumble: the Dionysian end that is also the condition of new beginning. The universe does not derive its existence from something not part of it. It proceeds from the being of cosmic man: his body, his gaze, his word—and his consciousness. There is no opposition between two worlds—between created being and uncreated being. On the contrary, there is incessant conversion and consubstantiality between beings and things, between heaven and earth, between men and gods. (h/t: brandon hayes)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542552724 Timestamp) THE OUTSTANDING QUESTION: CAN IT BE DONE? —“I do not think German philosophy was a reaction to empiricism.”—Aaron Kahland —“Thinking Kant’s love affair with Rousseau being a German reaction to Anglo liberalism – secular Christian apologetics”—Bill Joslin I mean, british empiricism begins back in the 1090’s and within two hundred years becomes explicit under roger bacon. and by the 1600’s under Francis bacon all but complete. leading to hobbes, lock, hume, smith, et al. The bacons were jurists applying law to modern thought. Instead, Germans less so with leibnitz but certainly with wolff and kant continued the scholastic tradition of apriorism independent of empiricism, and when that failed moved to experientialism, and finally to the nonsense of marx and heidegger. These people were theologians applying theology to modern thought. The great questions, which dogs my work, are: (a) is this internal world of the germans and external world of the anglos genetic or cultural (linguistic, traditional, normative, literary, institution) or a mixture of both? (b) Given the difference between british (shallow), american (constitutional) and the german (metaphysical) moral depth be TAUGHT by design, and by what methods can it be taught. Because it appears to require both an institutional method of teaching AND sufficient immersion in the culture to produce the general disposition, and; (c) how can we teach as such while also training the opposite (sun tzu, machiavelli, grand strategy) that this “piety” or ‘moralism’ is a utility and a choice not a truth? Because it is the LATTER PROBLEM that seems to be the issue, not the former. In other words, today you talk to germans and they are convinced of this ‘nonsense’ that they have a special history rather than did the logical thing as all other peoples in history have done. (and arguably were in the right in both wars). Brits are in a virtue spiral of death for the same reason. Americans are incrementally defeated by their women for the same reason. And as far as I can tell it is christianity underneath that causes these failures – because it is ideal and unlimited, rather than limited and real (limits of tolerance and forgiveness)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542651949 Timestamp) INHERENT RIGHTS (IDEALS) VS INHERENT DEMAND AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (REALS) by Luke Weinhagen (important concept) —“Commons: Every single thing you pay for by either action, inaction,or forgone opportunity for discount or gain”— This is another area where much of the west is operating with a categorization error in place. We have been categorizing the concept “natural rights” as an INHERENT quality of each individual, not something that has a COST. We should be categorizing it as an available property, with a cost to gain interest in. A commons. Because of its relationship to reciprocity. natural rights is the root commons. All other commons extend from the foundation that natural rights creates and are limited by the breadth of those rights. One must, and can only, purchase interest in that commons through the demonstration of reciprocity and sovereignty. Failure to police this root commons, and extending it to everyone (categorization error – natural/available to all, not inherent/granted to all), creates a vulnerability (extends agency status to parasites) and exposes every derivative commons to parasitism. No correction downstream can remove this vulnerability, they are become attempts at compensation for that original flaw, just more imposed costs. (if I am understanding [Curt] correctly, this one is going to make heads explode when the correction is put in place – though the only other outcome is system collapse)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542640445 Timestamp) JOHN MARK’S JOURNEY TO LEADERSHIP By John Mark —“John Mark, You’ve made extraordinary progress coming seemingly out of nowhere and rapidly into thought leadership. For the sake of others, can you explain your journey, how long it took, and what advantages you had, and disadvantages you had to overcome? “—Curt Doolittle Thank you Curt. I’d be happy to share. First, I don’t know how to express how grateful I am to have come across you and this community of outstanding quality men (and some great women too). I started as a very motivated Christian. Grandparents and parents missionaries. High empathy gene. I just wanted to help people. Out of this grew a desire to understand truth. Somehow I realized this was the best way to help people in the long run. Started questioning certain commonly taught Christian doctrines (tithing), realized I’d been lied to. Then questioned hell (loving God + hell = does not compute). Spent a couple years researching it in the Bible. Wrote 500-pg book about it, got a niche audience online but couldn’t monetize it enough to be worth it. Also got very frustrated with church people. They punish questioning. I didn’t understand IQ, didn’t know that most of the people I was trying to talk to are practically a different species. Always had right wing economic instinct but almost no political knowledge. Started studying money, figured out banking scam. Got into conspiracy stuff. Then discovered “game”, redpilled on women. Then started trying to figure out the Left, because I truly could not understand them. I thought they could not possibly be sincere. (Now I know they are. At least the grassroots is. I did not fully realize this til I found Curt. Even many of the leaders – e.g. Obama probably is a true believer.) Abandoned the church. Realized the Bible does not inform about too many essential facts or equip how to solve political problems. Ended up stuck in a place where I couldn’t figure out how to stop the cycle of corruption/left advance. Somehow came across Curt, maybe 1.5 years ago (maybe 2?). Found the answer (Propertarianism) and took my understanding to a level I would not have thought possible. Have been feeding on Curt’s feed daily since I found him. I have also learned a lot from many others that contribute in his orbit. Everything I learned previously dovetailed in. From beginning to end, 10 years. Spending most of my “free time” studying/learning. I also learn by trying to teach, even if to myself. Writing, speaking, I teach out loud in the shower and in my bedroom. I record messages/content and listen back. Exposes my gaps. If I can’t explain it to a 12-yr-old, I don’t understand it well enough. And if I can’t predict accurately, I don’t understand. And if I can’t teach/speak decently on a subject off the cuff, I haven’t absorbed it well enough. (I do structure my content, but often stream of consciousness takes over due to familiarity with concepts, mulling them over for years. Often I get insights in the middle of speaking or writing. I’m sure Curt and many others have experienced this.) I did not try to come out with any political content until I was reasonably confident I had something to offer and that I would be more help than hindrance. I’m terrified of being wrong and leading people astray. (KEEP ME HONEST AND ACCURATE EVERYBODY!) I started by experimenting with short comments on Curt posts. Feedback was good so I kept going. I’ve always felt I had potential as a “teacher/explainer”/public speaker politically, but you never know until you test. Feedback was good enough from Curt and his group that I decided to start YouTube channel. Disadvantages:

    • Religious background, religious “experiences” I can’t explain. (Hinders scientific thought, wasted a lot of time seeking something unreliable.) A lot of muscle memory to undo.
    • Parents were loving (great in most ways) but did not prepare me for the real world. Struggled mightily in my 20s financially and with women (bluepilled) despite being tall, decent-looking, and naturally alpha in some ways. (This was an advantage in the end because it drove me to learn – “What am I doing wrong?”)
    • Extremely high creativity (musician), low conscientiousness naturally. Had to learn conscientiousness.
    • I don’t care about anything but my immediate family and understanding the world to help my people. This is an advantage but it’s like pulling teeth to get myself to work on my career. Make 6 figs now for big company doing mental/comms work but took me a while. Good socially but I’m not motivated to network with normies.
    • Zero support – nothing but rejection – from everyone I knew in meat world throughout my entire growth process. (I’m sure many others share this experience.)
    • No detailed historical knowledge, never studied philosophy or economics. Never got heavily into Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism. My time for studying was limited by workday and family, so I was laser-focused on “explain how the world works and why, or you’re wasting my time”. Every time I’d dip my toe into philosophy or econ I got frustrated. These things require sorting through huge volume of fluff/distraction and extracting nuggets and synthesizing, I simply didn’t have the time.

    Advantages:

    • Curt has been my shortcut on philosophy/econ/synthesis of everything – forever grateful. Curt also helped me realize that talking/preaching to people is not enough to get them to act productively, because it cannot overcome powerful instincts operating in millions of people. There must be rule of law (force) applied. (I kind of bypassed the libertarianism/classical liberal trap because Curt gave me a shortcut on so many subjects.)
    • 135-140ish IQ, skewed verbal. I can tell Curt and some/many men in Curt’s orbit are smarter than I am, but my range may be ideal for speaking to normies.
    • Extremely high openness (Big 5), learning is a compulsion, not a chore
    • Sitting in thousands of church services I learned the power of public speaking. Learned by observing. Contrasting the intolerable speakers from the great ones. T.D. Jakes (black preacher) + actual facts would be near perfection. I’m still improving but that volume of observation experience was helpful. Speak in simple language, be easy to follow (structure, or must be riveting if stream of consciousness), be genuine (don’t try to fake a persona) and passionate, explain why what you’re saying is important, surprise people somehow if you can, have a fresh angle of some sort that people haven’t heard before (even if it’s a new way of saying something that’s been said before). Listen to recordings of yourself – brutal but necessary to remove flaws/bad habits. What you hear on YouTube is somewhat edited for faster speed/pace (less captive audience than real life). Still trying to get better.
    • Got some decent experience public speaking in church settings. Enough to test and learn. A lot to youth. If you can keep 16-yr-olds interested for half an hour, you’re doing ok.
    • Am extremely comfortable in front of people due to playing music on stage (churches, other venues) hundreds/thousands of times.

    One big advantage: An amazing traditional, highly conscientious wife (Eastern European) who follows me everywhere intellectually and physically, is immune to leftist thought due to close knowledge of the effects of communism, and is a great cook! Hope this is helpful. Would be happy to answer any more specific questions. It is an amazing privilege to be a part of this. It’s bigger than any one of us and we all play our part. I hope to play mine with excellence to the best of my ability. Also a huge thank you to all of you who have encouraged me and given me your feedback and thoughts with the YouTube channel. Hugs

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542651949 Timestamp) INHERENT RIGHTS (IDEALS) VS INHERENT DEMAND AND ASSOCIATED COSTS (REALS) by Luke Weinhagen (important concept) —“Commons: Every single thing you pay for by either action, inaction,or forgone opportunity for discount or gain”— This is another area where much of the west is operating with a categorization error in place. We have been categorizing the concept “natural rights” as an INHERENT quality of each individual, not something that has a COST. We should be categorizing it as an available property, with a cost to gain interest in. A commons. Because of its relationship to reciprocity. natural rights is the root commons. All other commons extend from the foundation that natural rights creates and are limited by the breadth of those rights. One must, and can only, purchase interest in that commons through the demonstration of reciprocity and sovereignty. Failure to police this root commons, and extending it to everyone (categorization error – natural/available to all, not inherent/granted to all), creates a vulnerability (extends agency status to parasites) and exposes every derivative commons to parasitism. No correction downstream can remove this vulnerability, they are become attempts at compensation for that original flaw, just more imposed costs. (if I am understanding [Curt] correctly, this one is going to make heads explode when the correction is put in place – though the only other outcome is system collapse)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1542572175 Timestamp) —“Humans intuit and organize as packs and herds, mixed as together as one. Women intuitively construct a herd. Men intuitively construct a pack. Polygamy is the crudest solution of this competition between pack and herd –monogamy the ultimate balance of pack and herd. Monogamy (pairing off) is the optimum nash equilibrium possible – no individual has his or her optimum but together they have the optimum for all.”—Michael D. Abbott I’ll augment that a bit in that packs of men domesticated herds of females before they domesticated herds of other herd animals, and partnered with wolves(dogs), who are the other pack animals. The fact that women have always been property of males offset by the care of fathers and brothers for their daughters (once they understood such a thing) is antithetical to the modern mind, but it is the reason females still demonstrate herd instincts as prey and males still demonstrate pack instincts as predators, and why civil societies form marriages as the means of satisfying the demands of both.