Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE ONLY STUDENT LOAND PROBLEM IS A FEMALE GUT-COURSE NONSENSE DEGREE PROBLEM It

    THE ONLY STUDENT LOAND PROBLEM IS A FEMALE GUT-COURSE NONSENSE DEGREE PROBLEM

    It’s interesting since the imbalance is caused by the vast number of women taking nonsense courses, and being awarded nonsense-degrees. Whereas men do not pay money to take nonsense degrees.

    –“42 percent of women have more than $30,000 in college debt, compared with 27 percent of men. Women are two times more likely than men to think it will take more than 20 years to pay off their loans, “–

    —“Women currently hold two-thirds of the $1.3 trillion in outstanding student-loan debt in the U.S., “—

    In other words, women are more likely to (a) finance the anti-western propaganda (b) take nonsense gut courses and majors (c) create vast student debt.

    This is despite the fact that (a) it’s demonstrable that women learn nothing in college of workplace value (b) women more easily fit into diverse social orders in the work place (c) women are better clerical workers at an earlier age (d) women are given defference in social interaction assisting communications and collaboration in the workplace.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 14:05:00 UTC

  • I kind of think Aristocratic Liberty requires (a) scientific thought AND (b) tak

    I kind of think Aristocratic Liberty requires (a) scientific thought AND (b) taking responsibility for the tribe.

    Whereas much Separatist libertinism uses (c) rational thought and (d) avoids responsibility for the tribe (absence of loyalty).

    You could just say in-group males and out-group males.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 13:22:00 UTC

  • (archived from Adam’s page) Well, there are examples of GROUPS adopting the fema

    (archived from Adam’s page)

    Well, there are examples of GROUPS adopting the female strategy. There are examples of MEN adopting the female strategy. The consequence of pedomorphism could continue to soften the male strategy (at high costs). But women prefer men who demonstrate the male strategy. Meanwhile we are doing what women SAY they want (feminising men) but DEMONSTRATING that they want something different in mates: the male strategy. So either we stop listening to what women SAY and watch what they do, and change men ourselves, or we are defeated by men who do because that is what women actually want.

    There are only two genders. If we try to achieve one, we will end up with none.

    Bonobo’s only exist because they aren’t worth EATING by anyone yet. Or put another way, bonobos MAY exist because they were too expensive to eat and not enough of a threat to any male dominance hierarchy to kill off. IN other words, bonobos are soft because others forced them to be. We all tend to model evolution in a vacuum rather than as a competition. When the ‘age of apes’ saw a lot of experimentation within the great ape family, and *almost all variations ended up dead*.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:48:00 UTC

  • (IOW: If bonobo’s didn’t exist we wouldn’t believe they were possible)

    (IOW: If bonobo’s didn’t exist we wouldn’t believe they were possible)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:41:00 UTC

  • “Male cooperation is based on voluntary hierarchy, so the fact that someone is b

    —“Male cooperation is based on voluntary hierarchy, so the fact that someone is better than you in some way means it is better for men to be friends. Female cooperation is not hierarchical, because caring for children does not require leadership in the same way that hunting and warfare do.”— Adam Voight

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:41:00 UTC

  • THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITING EVERY DAY Ask my friend Frank Lovell. Or anyone who ha

    THE IMPORTANCE OF WRITING EVERY DAY

    Ask my friend Frank Lovell. Or anyone who has followed me for a long time. I used to be incomprehensible. (now I’m just inaccessible). Learning to write is just practice.

    Write every day for at least an hour about anything you are inspired to write about. And write for an imagined audience if possible. What you come to notice is that you know less than you thought you did when thinking – but that you INTUIT things when thinking that you ‘feel’ you understand.

    ***So you can use writing to help you turn what you intuited but really didn’t know, to that which you can articulate because you DO know.***

    (One of the reasons I write on FB – pretty much everything – is that the ‘imagined audience’ of FB prevents me from using my ‘internal voice’ which would be incomprehensible to nearly everyone, because it is ‘autistic speech’ – lots of long leaps of reason between examples of fine detail. Writing for an audience helps me write in ‘human speech’ – or at least try to.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 09:12:00 UTC

  • “Pascal’s wager in personal choice, Occam’s razor in scientific investigation, D

    “Pascal’s wager in personal choice, Occam’s razor in scientific investigation, Dollar Cost Averaging in investment, Bayesian choice in computer science, and the law of the excluded middle in logic and mathematics all recommend precisely the same principle: When we are absent sufficient information or sufficient time, or sufficient resources, pragmatic decisions are still possible.”

    -Curt Doolittle

    Brett Sterling just posted this. And when I re-read it, it made me realize, that I’d forgotten to finish the explanation why.

    By choosing (purchasing) the lowest cost option we do not maximize gains or success or precision, but we minimize losses or failures, or under-over estimation.

    Why? Because the universe is cheap. It hasn’t the choice to take an option on higher, later, rewards to conserve energy. It conserves energy by taking the lowest cost solution that causes persistence.

    Why is this important? Because philosophy (morality, personal choice) pursues the good, and the optimum, but generally ignores costs.

    Adding costs to philosophy is analogous to removing immortality from the gods of our myths.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 08:04:00 UTC

  • ON MESSAGE THAT OVERWHELMING RESPONSE TEAMS IS TRIVIAL

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-new-wildfires-20170709-story.htmlSTAYING ON MESSAGE THAT OVERWHELMING RESPONSE TEAMS IS TRIVIAL

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 20:47:00 UTC

  • “We should be ruling the humans, Not running around Making back-alley treaties w

    —“We should be ruling the humans, Not running around Making back-alley treaties with them. For fuck’s sake, these people are our food.”—

    My opinion about returning to our previous strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 20:18:00 UTC

  • THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFEMINACY AND ROTHBARDIANISM What libertarians hold to

    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFEMINACY AND ROTHBARDIANISM

    What libertarians hold to is that each is the judge of morality rather than external conditions that determine it regardless of what they think.

    What they are doing and what is appealing to ‘libertarians’ (whether it is a genetic, developmental, or cognitive deficiency – I assume that like in my case it is an erroneous dependence on introspection) is to ***apply the feminine strategy of demanding her approval rather than preventing the conflict between men.***

    It took me a long time to understand this was the cause. And I didn’t like it because it is my intuition as well, but once I understood that ***we care about women’s cooperation so that we buy opportunities for sex and affection, and to prevent their gossip. But no one gives a damn about the approval of beta males, and their gossip, so it just doesn’t matter what beta males think. Men don’t seek approval of other men, they seek to avoid the retaliation of other men.***

    I could write a book on this subject. Haidt has the data. The data is obvious. All we would need to do is some genetic testing on self identified libertarians. And we would find very consistent results.

    There is a very great difference between granting one another sovereignty and reciprocal defense out of loyalty, and running around virtue signaling that one is unwilling to cooperate except on x terms without providing reciprocal insurance (loyalty).

    From this perspective it’s extremely easy to understand the evolutionary biology at work.

    I have avoided this particular line of investigation and argument because I feel it is destructive to common interests. So I prefer to deny libertarians the fantasy that they can possess liberty without fighting and reciprocal insurance via loyalty.

    I had hoped to merely end libertarianism by demonstrating the fallacies of mises, rothbard and hoppe as mere word games, and that the dreams of a property-commune were just as absurd as the dreams of a commons-commune.

    But the science is sitting out there. And the evidence is everywhere. So if I have to go out and emasculate the libertarian movement further I will.

    At present I prefer to just say “look guys, I understand, its impossible so support the warrior class and understand that you are gonna have to either operate at their grace, or at least stay out of their way. Because they will create sovereignty under which you can have your liberty. But without them creating sovereignty, you cannot possible ever again have your liberty. because there are no borderlands left.”

    There is only one source of liberty: a universal, armed, organized, militiia demanding it from a sovereign in exchange for compensation.

    There is only one source of sovereignty, and that is a universal, armed, organized, militia, imposing rule of law, under natural law, universal standing, and universal application, producing markets for reproduction(marriage), production(goods, services, and information), commons, and polities, wherein each man fully insures each other man and his property in toto from imposition of costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 20:09:00 UTC