Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Curt Doolittle wrote on Ivar Diederik’s timeline.

    (FB 1551549876 Timestamp) Hey. Haven’t chatted in a while. How are things? 😉

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551551252 Timestamp) —“How do you get women to leave the workforce? Reduce incentives for them to choose a career over family? If so how would that work?”—John Smith CLARIFICATION It’s not important that women leave the work force so much as that we lower the burden of not being in the work force so that women work for luxuries, socialization, and joy rather than out of economic necessity at the expense of family. There are women who will always feel the drive for achievement just like men do. There are plenty of women however, who would prefer to maintain a comfortable middle class lifestyle, while raising their children without compromise. HOW: 1. Distribute liquidity (money supply) directly to consumers, instead of thru the financial system. 2. Eliminate Consumer Interest on durable goods. 3. Restore voluntary disassociation, so it’s not necessary to ‘buy a home where good schools are’ rather than have good schools by prohibiting peoples who ruin them. We can make most neighborhoods good neighborhoods again -without much difficulty. 4. Eliminate subsidy for non-degrees in non-subjects. 5. Eliminate communal property, alimony, and child support. 6. Tax Freedom for self-support of 4 or more children. 7. Involuntary Sterilization of dependent mothers. 8. Restore universal male service, and continual fitness for service through age 60. 9. Reduce junior and high school to half time and part time work thereby eliminating jobs for immigrants. 10. This ends the ignorance, desocialization, and lack of agency an of teenagers such that they do not enter maturity with pent up sexual, social, economic, frustrations. We subsidize bad behavior. end the subsidies and the behavior will end. —“Those solutions lighten the burden of raising a nuclear family and help people avoid debt pitfalls. So that definitely helps women choose not to prioritize work over family. However, there is social status and wealth you can get from choosing a career over family. Women, like all humans, like wealth and social status. What’s stopping a female from becoming career oriented because she wants wealth and social status?.”–John Smith Women are not like men. They are much more signal driven. Change the signals and change the behavior. We will never turn back the clock. But we can rebalance the distribution. —“Very interesting Curt, thank you.”–John Smith

  • Curt Doolittle wrote on Ivar Diederik’s timeline.

    (FB 1551549876 Timestamp) Hey. Haven’t chatted in a while. How are things? 😉

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551572497 Timestamp) NO MORE LIES —“@Curt Doolittle If I have an idea, a theory, yet don’t have the evidence yet–it still might be true. The Higgs Boson comes to mind. It was an idea, a theory, there were no facts yet to prove it, it fit in with the standard model, itself a theory, and solved some problems in quantum mechanics, but it wasn’t until the particle was actually discovered by the LHC that we could call it true. So was it a lie before then? You can’t always exactly know what’s true. Some questions are unsettled. So we make assumptions to try things out. It’s not exactly faith but it’s like it. It requires that we temporarily believe in it to test it, to question it, to try and figure it out. All part of reasoning. Maybe you didn’t mean what you said to this depth, what you wrote seems to make perfect sense on the surface, but through a little questioning, seeking to drill down, to get to the essence and the fundamentals of things, it seemed to me to be a little imprecise. This is not to simply be disputatious, to be contrary, not to be mean or anything, your statement was a fine, stimulating, sentiment, but to honestly question.​”— Mark Wright We do not have faith or temporarily believe in anything. We seek only to discover by testing that which is testable. And we limit ourselves to that limit. 1) such things are testable and falsifiable. 2) such things preserve the parsimony of naturalism, 3) such things are not counter to all of historical evidence, nor commensurate with the long history of ignorance error, fraud, and deceit
    4) such things serve as no premise for consequent inference likewise for fraud and deceit, 5) such things are not dependent on verbal pretense or sophism, 6) such things are not claimed true only speculative,
    7) such things have no malincentive to lie, or preserve a lie.
    8) Conversely what i argued against was the opposite of all those tests. It is not arrogance but intolerance for the continued use of lies against my people by those in conscious or unconscious league with the ancient enemy of not only my people but all of mankind. No more lies. #post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551661527 Timestamp) —“The bigger risk I assess is cleaving your following and only keeping the radicals because people get scared away from the movement. They are projecting, good people don’t go out and attack bystanders or commit lone wolf attacks. Good people stick to their values regardless of the media they consume and the more good people involved with the movement the less likely it is to steer that way”— People leave, internalize, and return, because in the end, we are the only game in town. Making a trade, not fulfilling a want without cost. Strategy is to stay on message long enough to desensitize the message. Combination of positive policies and reality of revolution. The shock wears off. The desensitization progresses. Education evolves to interest. Watch… Method to the madness.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551661527 Timestamp) —“The bigger risk I assess is cleaving your following and only keeping the radicals because people get scared away from the movement. They are projecting, good people don’t go out and attack bystanders or commit lone wolf attacks. Good people stick to their values regardless of the media they consume and the more good people involved with the movement the less likely it is to steer that way”— People leave, internalize, and return, because in the end, we are the only game in town. Making a trade, not fulfilling a want without cost. Strategy is to stay on message long enough to desensitize the message. Combination of positive policies and reality of revolution. The shock wears off. The desensitization progresses. Education evolves to interest. Watch… Method to the madness.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551966491 Timestamp) MORE RESPONSE TO TURD FLINGING MONKEY Your counter proposition is counter to all logic and evidence, and that is that it is far more expensive to speak truthfully under due diligence than it is to spread falsehoods. Since the left spreads falsehoods faster than the right can correct them, and since the right is non-rational non-scientific purely traditional, moralizing, and religious in its arguments this not only means that the left wins but that without P the right continues to be argumentatively dead. And that is the lesson of the 20th c. That the industrialization of lying by media (propagandizing) was even more effective than the Pulpit. And that the right has continuously failed to put forth an argument. And the reason is that our traditional order is hostile to democracy since democracy is dysgenic, and aristocracy eugenic, and european shave been eugenic and aristocratic even under the dead weight of the church. The economics of lying are what they are. The right lost. And continues to lose. Ther eis only one means of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom which is the organized use of violence by sufficient men to win, and the imposition of rule of law of sovereignty reciprocity truth duty and markets in everything that has been our historical method of competing against the lower trust rest-of-the-world.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551962479 Timestamp) SECOND RESPONSE TO​ TURD FLINGING MONKEY (good material for countering critics) —“@Curt Doolittle You’ve simply proven my point. Under your system, everyone would sue everyone for any criticism, and this would have a far reaching silencing effect, which would make civil discourse impossible out of fear, and lead to violence as the natural consequence. You say “fewer public opinions of higher quality”, but in reality it would simply lead to the mass silencing on opinions which are not approved by the ruling class of judges who determine what is and isn’t approved. You accuse me of straw-manning while proving my point. Obviously under your system you would sue me and it would be left to judge to sort out. Maybe they side with you, maybe they side with me, but either way it rests on the personal beliefs, biases, and interpretations of judges with no input from the people. This is rule by judges, but you don’t see it that way in the same way that Communists would reject the idea that their system leads to a Dictatorship. They would scoff at the idea that they support Dictators, even though that would inevitably happen (and has happened) whenever their system is implemented.”— So how would judges and JURIES make decisions on the truthfulness, due diligence, and harm of a statement – and why would that be DISCRETIONARY rather than DECIDABLE? In other words, since P consists of a methodology for such due diligence under law, such that you know, and the court knows, and the jury knows, you performed sufficient due diligence to satisfy demand for decidability before making a claim – then whether the claim is later found true or false is immaterial. And if found against you, retraction and equal promotion would be required – plus court costs. In this case you did not criticize wether that method of due diligence would provide decidability versus discretion. You assumed P is an ideology or philosophy rather than a methodology where one part of that methodology which consists of those steps of due diligence. And you did not criticize whether that methodology will in fact provide decidability rather than discretion that you accuse me of fostering. The answer is, that you are lazy, didn’t do your due diligence, and sought attention and signaling and perhaps income by criticizing that which you did not understand is a formal (in the grammatical sense ) logic. And like every excuse maker in history you are trying to preserve your source of attention, signaling, self image, and possible income, by externalizing costs onto others – in my case defense of my work, it’s brand, and the potential to offer a viable solution to conquest by the sophisms of the left. Now, were ths law in place, you would no doubt simply have done your due diligence and PAID THE COST YOURSELF, rather than making a dishonest statement in public and forcing me to bear the cost of defending it. Or you could have, at the very least, engaged in reciprocity, produced a list of questions, and either published those questions or asked me to answer them for you. Instead you made an assertion without the effort and knowledge of doing so and forced me to bear a cost. In other words, you’re a thief. P asks you to perform due diligence before polluting the informational commons with falsehoods. P consists of a methodology that you can use and the court can use to test whether you performed due diligence. P doesn’t ask us to know the truth. it asks us to perform due diligence against making false and harmful statements that pollute the information commons. The jury is exceptionally good at testing whether one did due diligence, and whether that due diligence is reasonable. Now, could keynesian economics survive? I don’t think so. Could postmodern academy survive? I don’t think so. But conservatism and anglo libertarianism can because they consists of nothing other than what I am proposing: rule of law with full accounting of display word and deed. Stifling discourse isn’t the point. Stifling the stupid, ignorant, lazy, dishonest, and malfeasant is the point. You would adapt your behavior. your returns on laziness in exchange for attention, signals, and possible income would be lower, and therefore the cost to the informational commons for the damage you do to it would be lower. The problem with our law is the increase in discretion under activist pressure because there is no formal logic to the law that limits its abuse. Now there is. No more lies. No more fraudulent returns. Not in commerce, not in finance, not in economics and politics – and not in shit-talking virtue signaling, attention seeking nonsense from the peanut gallery. Pay your way to enlightenment. Don’t make others pay to educate you in defense of the commons you seek to pollute. –follow up– (and it kind of pains me to point out that rule of law, which is the method that separates the west from ALL OTHER PEOPLES and is the single most influential reason for our success in the ancient and modern worlds, is how we live and how we always have lived other than under communism, socialism, and discretionary fascism. Rule of law is the goal of all peoples. It is GOVERNMENT in the via positiva that is discretionary. It is RULE in the via negativa by LAW that is not discretionary. WHile there is value in discretion in the allocation of punishments there is very little value in discretion of truth or falsehood. And despite what you (naively) might think, the courts are absurdly good at what they do. Despite the fact that we have ‘shitty’ laws. Particularly shitty laws defending men from women and the state.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551962479 Timestamp) SECOND RESPONSE TO​ TURD FLINGING MONKEY (good material for countering critics) —“@Curt Doolittle You’ve simply proven my point. Under your system, everyone would sue everyone for any criticism, and this would have a far reaching silencing effect, which would make civil discourse impossible out of fear, and lead to violence as the natural consequence. You say “fewer public opinions of higher quality”, but in reality it would simply lead to the mass silencing on opinions which are not approved by the ruling class of judges who determine what is and isn’t approved. You accuse me of straw-manning while proving my point. Obviously under your system you would sue me and it would be left to judge to sort out. Maybe they side with you, maybe they side with me, but either way it rests on the personal beliefs, biases, and interpretations of judges with no input from the people. This is rule by judges, but you don’t see it that way in the same way that Communists would reject the idea that their system leads to a Dictatorship. They would scoff at the idea that they support Dictators, even though that would inevitably happen (and has happened) whenever their system is implemented.”— So how would judges and JURIES make decisions on the truthfulness, due diligence, and harm of a statement – and why would that be DISCRETIONARY rather than DECIDABLE? In other words, since P consists of a methodology for such due diligence under law, such that you know, and the court knows, and the jury knows, you performed sufficient due diligence to satisfy demand for decidability before making a claim – then whether the claim is later found true or false is immaterial. And if found against you, retraction and equal promotion would be required – plus court costs. In this case you did not criticize wether that method of due diligence would provide decidability versus discretion. You assumed P is an ideology or philosophy rather than a methodology where one part of that methodology which consists of those steps of due diligence. And you did not criticize whether that methodology will in fact provide decidability rather than discretion that you accuse me of fostering. The answer is, that you are lazy, didn’t do your due diligence, and sought attention and signaling and perhaps income by criticizing that which you did not understand is a formal (in the grammatical sense ) logic. And like every excuse maker in history you are trying to preserve your source of attention, signaling, self image, and possible income, by externalizing costs onto others – in my case defense of my work, it’s brand, and the potential to offer a viable solution to conquest by the sophisms of the left. Now, were ths law in place, you would no doubt simply have done your due diligence and PAID THE COST YOURSELF, rather than making a dishonest statement in public and forcing me to bear the cost of defending it. Or you could have, at the very least, engaged in reciprocity, produced a list of questions, and either published those questions or asked me to answer them for you. Instead you made an assertion without the effort and knowledge of doing so and forced me to bear a cost. In other words, you’re a thief. P asks you to perform due diligence before polluting the informational commons with falsehoods. P consists of a methodology that you can use and the court can use to test whether you performed due diligence. P doesn’t ask us to know the truth. it asks us to perform due diligence against making false and harmful statements that pollute the information commons. The jury is exceptionally good at testing whether one did due diligence, and whether that due diligence is reasonable. Now, could keynesian economics survive? I don’t think so. Could postmodern academy survive? I don’t think so. But conservatism and anglo libertarianism can because they consists of nothing other than what I am proposing: rule of law with full accounting of display word and deed. Stifling discourse isn’t the point. Stifling the stupid, ignorant, lazy, dishonest, and malfeasant is the point. You would adapt your behavior. your returns on laziness in exchange for attention, signals, and possible income would be lower, and therefore the cost to the informational commons for the damage you do to it would be lower. The problem with our law is the increase in discretion under activist pressure because there is no formal logic to the law that limits its abuse. Now there is. No more lies. No more fraudulent returns. Not in commerce, not in finance, not in economics and politics – and not in shit-talking virtue signaling, attention seeking nonsense from the peanut gallery. Pay your way to enlightenment. Don’t make others pay to educate you in defense of the commons you seek to pollute. –follow up– (and it kind of pains me to point out that rule of law, which is the method that separates the west from ALL OTHER PEOPLES and is the single most influential reason for our success in the ancient and modern worlds, is how we live and how we always have lived other than under communism, socialism, and discretionary fascism. Rule of law is the goal of all peoples. It is GOVERNMENT in the via positiva that is discretionary. It is RULE in the via negativa by LAW that is not discretionary. WHile there is value in discretion in the allocation of punishments there is very little value in discretion of truth or falsehood. And despite what you (naively) might think, the courts are absurdly good at what they do. Despite the fact that we have ‘shitty’ laws. Particularly shitty laws defending men from women and the state.)

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1552042087 Timestamp) AGAIN. PERFECT!!!