Curt Doolittle

Form: Sketch

  • Aristocracy (Aristocratic Egalitarian), Indo european. World ( west european, ol

    Aristocracy (Aristocratic Egalitarian), Indo european. World ( west european, old european, east european, iranic, indian (aryan) expansion). versus the priestly cults of the semites (east africans) and egyptians (west asians)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-26 19:15:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033795039485419521

    Reply addressees: @William54076389

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1033773643220824066

    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/1033773643220824066

  • Something happened around the black sea…

    Something happened around the black sea, probably in old Europe, the caucuses, Anatolia or Mesopotamia, and it led to the bronze age. That something had to do with the area serving as the nexus of intercontinental trade. The ‘explosion’ of civilization (meaning technology) radiated from there outward. It is nearly impossible to reach west africa by east-west overland route. So the empires that were forming in west africa were just about at the same level of development as everyone else the same non-linear travel distance from the center of the world. There were empires, but there simply wasn’t enough trade ‘out there on the fringe’. Now we can argue about IQ, yes, but that didn’t stop the south americans. Europe lagged mesopotamia, egypt, hrappans, and yellow river china for the simple reason that africa lagged europe: lack of sufficient production capital to tax to form armies of imperial conquest. Rivers concentrated production and concentrated production allowed defense and taxation. the rivers of europe, the steppe, the desert, and the tundra are not as productive. That is why it required mediterranean trade in the old world, north sea trade in the medieval world, and atlantic trade in the modern world, to bring europe to economic parity.

  • Something happened around the black sea…

    Something happened around the black sea, probably in old Europe, the caucuses, Anatolia or Mesopotamia, and it led to the bronze age. That something had to do with the area serving as the nexus of intercontinental trade. The ‘explosion’ of civilization (meaning technology) radiated from there outward. It is nearly impossible to reach west africa by east-west overland route. So the empires that were forming in west africa were just about at the same level of development as everyone else the same non-linear travel distance from the center of the world. There were empires, but there simply wasn’t enough trade ‘out there on the fringe’. Now we can argue about IQ, yes, but that didn’t stop the south americans. Europe lagged mesopotamia, egypt, hrappans, and yellow river china for the simple reason that africa lagged europe: lack of sufficient production capital to tax to form armies of imperial conquest. Rivers concentrated production and concentrated production allowed defense and taxation. the rivers of europe, the steppe, the desert, and the tundra are not as productive. That is why it required mediterranean trade in the old world, north sea trade in the medieval world, and atlantic trade in the modern world, to bring europe to economic parity.

  • Something happened around the black sea, probably in old Europe, the caucuses, A

    Something happened around the black sea, probably in old Europe, the caucuses, Anatolia or Mesopotamia, and it led to the bronze age. That something had to do with the area serving as the nexus of intercontinental trade. The ‘explosion’ of civilization (meaning technology) radiated from there outward. It is nearly impossible to reach west africa by east-west overland route. So the empires that were forming in west africa were just about at the same level of development as everyone else the same non-linear travel distance from the center of the world. There were empires, but there simply wasn’t enough trade ‘out there on the fringe’. Now we can argue about IQ, yes, but that didn’t stop the south americans.

    Europe lagged mesopotamia, egypt, hrappans, and yellow river china for the simple reason that africa lagged europe: lack of sufficient production capital to tax to form armies of imperial conquest. Rivers concentrated production and concentrated production allowed defense and taxation. the rivers of europe, the steppe, the desert, and the tundra are not as productive. That is why it required mediterranean trade in the old world, north sea trade in the medieval world, and atlantic trade in the modern world, to bring europe to economic parity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-12 10:39:00 UTC

  • Gender Specialization in Argument

    |FEMALE| Abrahamism > Marxism > Feminism > Postmodernism (undermining) using Pilpul and Critique (ridicule, shaming, gossiping, and rallying) -versus- |MALE| Law > Reason > Empiricism > Science (empowerment) using truth, contract. *All increases in opportunity lead to pursuit of genetic interests. In other words, the more agency we have in the world the more we pursue our interests. As such the industrial revolution in this era and the commercial revolution in the ancient world, made possible the female pursuit of decivilizational intuitions.*

    MORE EVIDENCE – GREATER GENDER EQUALITY MEANS GREATER SPECIALIZATION (DIVERGENCE), NOT CONVERGENCE
    http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jim.17.0096?code=amma-site
    http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jim.17.0096?code=amma-site

  • Gender Specialization in Argument

    |FEMALE| Abrahamism > Marxism > Feminism > Postmodernism (undermining) using Pilpul and Critique (ridicule, shaming, gossiping, and rallying) -versus- |MALE| Law > Reason > Empiricism > Science (empowerment) using truth, contract. *All increases in opportunity lead to pursuit of genetic interests. In other words, the more agency we have in the world the more we pursue our interests. As such the industrial revolution in this era and the commercial revolution in the ancient world, made possible the female pursuit of decivilizational intuitions.*

    MORE EVIDENCE – GREATER GENDER EQUALITY MEANS GREATER SPECIALIZATION (DIVERGENCE), NOT CONVERGENCE
    http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jim.17.0096?code=amma-site
    http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jim.17.0096?code=amma-site

  • Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces…

    It’s a book length treatment. But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence. Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism). My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle. I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”. But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse. The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging. That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.

  • Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces…

    It’s a book length treatment. But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence. Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism). My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle. I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”. But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse. The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging. That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.

  • SHAKESPEARE’S PAGAN WORLD – The Alchemy of man – The Magic of witches (women) –

    SHAKESPEARE’S PAGAN WORLD

    – The Alchemy of man

    – The Magic of witches (women)

    – The Spirits(ghosts) of Men and Women

    – The Elves of local nature.

    – The Greek and Roman Gods of natural forces.

    – The Christian God usurping Jupiter and Zeus in name only.

    This is, as I understand it, the paganism of germanic man.

    —“Ye elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes and groves,

    And ye that on the sands with printless foot

    Do chase the ebbing Neptune, and do fly him

    When he comes back; you demi-puppets that

    By moonshine do the green sour ringlets make

    Whereof the ewe not bites; and you whose pastime

    Is to make midnight mushrooms, that rejoice

    To hear the solemn curfew; by whose aid,

    Weak masters though ye be, I have bedimmed

    The noontide sun, called forth the mutinous winds,

    And ‘twixt the green sea and the azured vault

    Set roaring war – to the dread rattling thunder

    Have I given fire, and rifted Jove’s stout oak

    With his own bolt;…” — The Tempest, 5.1

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 10:27:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. |COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comer

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    |COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National.

    The family is the smallest corporation with the least assets, and the problem with family court is not a separate court for adjudication of differences in those corporations we call the family, but the notion of common property and the proposition that and interdependency can survive ending of that corporation. Ergo, no alimony, child support, and children to the mother and young adults from 12 to the father – pending the discretion of the child.

    Lets remember that men with children remarry, while women with children tend to circumvent marriage because they can use children for spousal substitution, and cannot bear compromise or competition in a new household where she must adapt her intuitions.

    When the corporation ends, it ends. And each party negotiates a new inter-gender organization.

    Or not.

    Hence the incentive for marriage is restored.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 12:43:26 UTC