Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Non argument. Man can demonstrably increase his control over the physical univer

    Non argument. Man can demonstrably increase his control over the physical universe and has done so with increasing precision.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 00:40:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861742692790931456

    Reply addressees: @schopee

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861682853192515584

    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/861682853192515584

  • meaningless untestable statement. man must act. action is the only frame of unde

    meaningless untestable statement. man must act. action is the only frame of understanding not false.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 20:28:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861679097373741057

    Reply addressees: @schopee

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861622288940126208

    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/861622288940126208

  • To National Socialists

    (re: criticisms that I am anti-religion) Hey guys. Thanks for the mention, and it’s fine to disagree. Um. I am not anti religion. (a) I treat religious texts as wisdom literature, not science or history, and as such meaningless in argument. I do not state that religion is unnecessary, or that it is bad. Only that anti-western religion is unnecessary or bad; (b) like Nietzsche I view christianity as an attack on western civilization that we have not fully saved ourselves from, but that we can reform our church to be pro-western – but the church has followed the money into the third world and abandoned us; (c) That the French and the Jewish cosmopolitans developed a new pseudoscientific set of arguments creating another false religion with which to attack the west, and that this pseudoscience is our current secular ‘cult’. (d) That by the application of (technical) natural law it is possible to make these pseudosciences illegal at the cost of making islam, unreformed christianity, judaism illegal in public speech – the same way we have made fraud illegal in the sale and distribution of goods and services; (e) that the only means of saving ourselves is the organized application of violence to impose this law, and to prosecute these liars by the organized application of violence. Mostly this group argues against me because (1) I do not believe the 1930’s can be recreated, (2) I advocate nationalism for everyone, not just my kin, (3) I blame our people for not using violence to defend ourselves, rather than blaming others for exploiting our weaknesses. (4) I don’t have a lot of patience with stupid people – and I doubt that I ever will. And this group can attract stupid people. Not that they aren’t my kin, and are wrong, but I have nothing to say to them. (Sorry). Cheers.

  • To National Socialists

    (re: criticisms that I am anti-religion) Hey guys. Thanks for the mention, and it’s fine to disagree. Um. I am not anti religion. (a) I treat religious texts as wisdom literature, not science or history, and as such meaningless in argument. I do not state that religion is unnecessary, or that it is bad. Only that anti-western religion is unnecessary or bad; (b) like Nietzsche I view christianity as an attack on western civilization that we have not fully saved ourselves from, but that we can reform our church to be pro-western – but the church has followed the money into the third world and abandoned us; (c) That the French and the Jewish cosmopolitans developed a new pseudoscientific set of arguments creating another false religion with which to attack the west, and that this pseudoscience is our current secular ‘cult’. (d) That by the application of (technical) natural law it is possible to make these pseudosciences illegal at the cost of making islam, unreformed christianity, judaism illegal in public speech – the same way we have made fraud illegal in the sale and distribution of goods and services; (e) that the only means of saving ourselves is the organized application of violence to impose this law, and to prosecute these liars by the organized application of violence. Mostly this group argues against me because (1) I do not believe the 1930’s can be recreated, (2) I advocate nationalism for everyone, not just my kin, (3) I blame our people for not using violence to defend ourselves, rather than blaming others for exploiting our weaknesses. (4) I don’t have a lot of patience with stupid people – and I doubt that I ever will. And this group can attract stupid people. Not that they aren’t my kin, and are wrong, but I have nothing to say to them. (Sorry). Cheers.

  • Yes, Of Course I’ve Considered it…

    —“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”— Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’. Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed. Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice. The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law. I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time. And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation. Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult. I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural. What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information. Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance. Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization. So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved. It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality. And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do. Which is what we have done. IN CLOSING So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for. I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.

  • Yes, Of Course I’ve Considered it…

    —“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”— Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’. Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed. Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice. The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law. I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time. And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation. Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult. I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural. What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information. Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance. Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization. So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved. It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality. And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do. Which is what we have done. IN CLOSING So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for. I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.

  • Yes. I use via negativa, criticism, science, to see what survives… Even in gender studies.

    —“Anne Tripp He’s using his negativia approach in gender stereotyping. He does it for males too. I agree with you that “if you want the horse to drink, lead it to water, don’t beat it.” But positivity is like positive affirmations … You have to have space or vacuum in the psyche for the information, otherwise it’s useless fluff.”—

  • Yes. I use via negativa, criticism, science, to see what survives… Even in gender studies.

    —“Anne Tripp He’s using his negativia approach in gender stereotyping. He does it for males too. I agree with you that “if you want the horse to drink, lead it to water, don’t beat it.” But positivity is like positive affirmations … You have to have space or vacuum in the psyche for the information, otherwise it’s useless fluff.”—

  • The Feminine. Via Negativa Doesn’t Fit The Justificationist Discourse, So You Have to Know My Goals

    —“Curt How about working on the positive aspects of female psychology and behaviour and how to develop them, rather than merely the ‘Women are weak, bad and a dangerous influence if they aren’t controlled’?”—Claire Rae Randall GREAT QUESTION. Well, if you go into my past work you see an awful lot of INTERPERSONAL adulation of women. And my history with (a variety) of women sort of speaks for itself. But that is different from the problem of the current era, and the way that we enfranchised women. And that I merely suggest that we give women a separate house so that men and women must agree, since we see such specialized views of the world.

    As far as I know all my arguments run back to the same basic idea: that we evolved a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and the the major and minor races, civilizations, classes, and genders have chosen specific strategies for doing so, and that the only way to know what is ‘good’ is that which is achievable through trade between people regardless of civilization, clan, class and gender, But at present the ant-aristocratic, anti white, anti west, anti-male dogma of the marxists, socialists, feminists, and postmodernists, is the dominant ‘status quo’ and I find it necessary to provide an arsenal of arguments to defeat that status quo leaving nothing but VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE that makes use of the information (wants) of all parts of the sense-perceptoin spectrum So my via-negativa in this subject is just like my via-negativa in every other subject – including my via-negativa against the white supremacists. I don’t think men have any other opinion than that women are DESIRABLE and that some women are TERRIBLY DESIRABLE and worthy dying for. I think that given the lack of agency, and the high degree of mental illness in women, (just as the high degree of impulsivity and violence in men) that failing to account for these outliers and failing to suppress them in political expression, through demand for demonstrated performance, is the problem. Yet, exclusion from the group because of ability is not frightening for men – but comforting. But for women, it’s terrifying to be eliminated from the debate. So while it has been possible to limit male participation in the debate over the commons it would be very difficult for women to accept meritocracy as do men. We have spent 50k years politically domesticating man, and we have spent less than a century politically domesticating women, and it shows. Ergo, the answer I propose is to produce a market for agency through demonstrated ability in the possession of agency. And to make use of the information and wants of women of agency and men of agency, and to incrementally suppress and eventually reduce, those people who lack agency. Thanks. Adore you. Curt Doolittle

  • The Feminine. Via Negativa Doesn’t Fit The Justificationist Discourse, So You Have to Know My Goals

    —“Curt How about working on the positive aspects of female psychology and behaviour and how to develop them, rather than merely the ‘Women are weak, bad and a dangerous influence if they aren’t controlled’?”—Claire Rae Randall GREAT QUESTION. Well, if you go into my past work you see an awful lot of INTERPERSONAL adulation of women. And my history with (a variety) of women sort of speaks for itself. But that is different from the problem of the current era, and the way that we enfranchised women. And that I merely suggest that we give women a separate house so that men and women must agree, since we see such specialized views of the world.

    As far as I know all my arguments run back to the same basic idea: that we evolved a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and the the major and minor races, civilizations, classes, and genders have chosen specific strategies for doing so, and that the only way to know what is ‘good’ is that which is achievable through trade between people regardless of civilization, clan, class and gender, But at present the ant-aristocratic, anti white, anti west, anti-male dogma of the marxists, socialists, feminists, and postmodernists, is the dominant ‘status quo’ and I find it necessary to provide an arsenal of arguments to defeat that status quo leaving nothing but VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE that makes use of the information (wants) of all parts of the sense-perceptoin spectrum So my via-negativa in this subject is just like my via-negativa in every other subject – including my via-negativa against the white supremacists. I don’t think men have any other opinion than that women are DESIRABLE and that some women are TERRIBLY DESIRABLE and worthy dying for. I think that given the lack of agency, and the high degree of mental illness in women, (just as the high degree of impulsivity and violence in men) that failing to account for these outliers and failing to suppress them in political expression, through demand for demonstrated performance, is the problem. Yet, exclusion from the group because of ability is not frightening for men – but comforting. But for women, it’s terrifying to be eliminated from the debate. So while it has been possible to limit male participation in the debate over the commons it would be very difficult for women to accept meritocracy as do men. We have spent 50k years politically domesticating man, and we have spent less than a century politically domesticating women, and it shows. Ergo, the answer I propose is to produce a market for agency through demonstrated ability in the possession of agency. And to make use of the information and wants of women of agency and men of agency, and to incrementally suppress and eventually reduce, those people who lack agency. Thanks. Adore you. Curt Doolittle