Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550431683 Timestamp) CHRISTIANS REACTION TO PROP. : “OMG THE GOYIM KNOW!!!” My job is truth. I don’t deal with whether people like the truth or not. My job is truth. And if I cut out cucks then that’s alright. Only those who fight matter. and each man has his own reasons for fighting. No war to impose christianity is possible. A war to deny everything else, and restore truth, and reciprocity, and the middle classes to sovereignty is. Tolerance for Xian Magic Nonsense as long as it is is private and not in matters of the commons, is fine. But deliver unto European Truth the Truth, and deliver unto Semitic Lies, Lies. Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550424363 Timestamp) I care about preserving christianity’s 30,000 sects for christians and their globalist universalist equalitarian disease, advancing our natural religion of the hearth for heathens and nationalist, the sciences for the secularists, and the law for those of us who must rule. And let the market accommodate people’s needs. Christianity will be the feminine and underclass religion, heathenism masculine and middle class, and those of us with power and agency need none.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550420779 Timestamp) PATTERNS OF SPEECH Notice how someone (sophisticated with world experience yet entirely empirical) like Michael comments and how other people (unsophisticated, without worldly experience, and entirely sentimental or anecdotal) comment. I ought to do a study of categories of comments just to show people how wise, smart, ignorant, and stupid people comment on a ignorant-wise, stupid-smart grid just to illustrate by pattern recognition what different people think like and act like. wise people ask. smart people tell ignorant people reject stupid people retaliate

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550364039 Timestamp) Pivoting. Watch my change in engagement technique. Take me 90 days.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550460544 Timestamp) CAN IT BE DONE? —“…can be done?”— I”m positive. But that’s because we can unite people behind law and policy not ideology, philosophy, or religion, giving everyone a win but no one a monopoly. All win and nobody loses. Because People follow incentives. People online have an incentive to signal. Online is a video game of signaling – not the political market. Policy will unite the clans so to speak out of common interest. Because common interest in progress is better than defeat in pursuit of monopoly

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550433458 Timestamp) GENERATIONS OF WARFARE The concept of four “generations” in the history of modern warfare was created by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, for the purpose of an argument for “the changing face of war” entering into a “fourth generation”.

    1. First-generation warfare refers to Ancient and Post-classical battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state.

    2. Second-generation warfare is the Early modern tactics used after the invention of the rifled musket and breech-loading weapons and continuing through the development of the machine gun and indirect fire. The term second generation warfare was created by the U.S. military in 1989.

    3. Third-generation warfare focuses on using Late modern technology-derived tactics of leveraging speed, stealth and surprise to bypass the enemy’s lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage.

    4. Fourth-generation warfare as presented by Lind et al. is characterized by “Post-modern” a return to decentralized forms of warfare, blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians due to nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.

    (wiki)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550460544 Timestamp) CAN IT BE DONE? —“…can be done?”— I”m positive. But that’s because we can unite people behind law and policy not ideology, philosophy, or religion, giving everyone a win but no one a monopoly. All win and nobody loses. Because People follow incentives. People online have an incentive to signal. Online is a video game of signaling – not the political market. Policy will unite the clans so to speak out of common interest. Because common interest in progress is better than defeat in pursuit of monopoly

  • (FB 1550447185 Timestamp) never saw this one before

    (FB 1550447185 Timestamp) never saw this one before.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550433458 Timestamp) GENERATIONS OF WARFARE The concept of four “generations” in the history of modern warfare was created by a team of United States analysts, including William S. Lind, for the purpose of an argument for “the changing face of war” entering into a “fourth generation”.

    1. First-generation warfare refers to Ancient and Post-classical battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state.

    2. Second-generation warfare is the Early modern tactics used after the invention of the rifled musket and breech-loading weapons and continuing through the development of the machine gun and indirect fire. The term second generation warfare was created by the U.S. military in 1989.

    3. Third-generation warfare focuses on using Late modern technology-derived tactics of leveraging speed, stealth and surprise to bypass the enemy’s lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage.

    4. Fourth-generation warfare as presented by Lind et al. is characterized by “Post-modern” a return to decentralized forms of warfare, blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians due to nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.

    (wiki)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550461054 Timestamp) THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIOSITY IN THREE POINTS Negative correlation between intelligence and religion. Greater negative correlation for dogma than behavior. In other words people demonstrate ethical behavior under the advice of the religion’s wisdom literature but ignore the dogma.

    1. First, intelligent people are less likely to (need to) conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma.

    2. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.

    3. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

    In other words, we cannot NOT have some sort of intuitionistic training of some form. Women are biased toward greater demand for mindfulness out of genetics. The lower classes are biased toward greater demand for mindfulness out of ability. “RELIGION” SOLVES THE NEURAL ECONOMY PROBLEM BY SOLVING THE MINDFULNESS PROBLEM.