Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • EDUCATION IS CRUEL TO BOYS AND MEN It’s F—KING CRUEL to put black kids in the

    EDUCATION IS CRUEL TO BOYS AND MEN

    It’s F—KING CRUEL to put black kids in the same classrooms and taught the same way as whites and asians.

    Hell, it’s cruel to whites to put them in the same classroom with asians. I mean, asian kids are amazing right out out of the womb. My son (very scandianvian, bigger, stronger, more aggressive) nearly got kicked out of school. Not because he exercises dominance. But because he won’t tolerate dominance of him – and will do something about some annoying kid who dominates him in noisiness, word, or action.

    The more rapid the maturity and the deeper the maturity the higher the ratio of physical exercise to classroom teaching is necessary to NOT produce brain damage in boys.

    The more experiential the girls, the more team sports are necessary so that girls are socialized so that they can learn to manage their emotions.

    I mean think of all the damage this postmodernism in education does to our people!!!!

    There was a point I wanted to open an inner city school for black men just so I could prove that the problem is entirely solvable by teaching everything physically instead of in-situ.

    ALmost all boys benefit from Military school with a lot of sports.

    Almost all girls benefit from any individual or team sport.

    Civilization consists of the suppression of animal impulse and the direction of dominance to the war and market rather than each other.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 10:09:00 UTC

  • (Small things that make life great. Finding a doctor that’s from seattle who has

    (Small things that make life great. Finding a doctor that’s from seattle who has real-life experience in business BEFORE med school, and doesn’t think an aspie-spectrum serial entrepreneur philosopher who works himself to death on a regular basis is anything particularly odd. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 09:59:00 UTC

  • THE CIVILIZATIONAL “SH-T TEST” Someone said this to me yesterday I think, and it

    THE CIVILIZATIONAL “SH-T TEST”

    Someone said this to me yesterday I think, and it’s stuck with me. That this is the best explanation for our current condition. Our women are giving us a “Sh-t Test” on a civilizational scale.

    And we are failing.

    Thankfully you can fix it with explanation, threat, and the back of your hand.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 09:57:00 UTC

  • The way to kill all feminist arguments is to just be honest. “If you want me to

    The way to kill all feminist arguments is to just be honest. “If you want me to treat you as an equal, then I will treat you as a man, and I would beat any man who spoke to me thusly. So my tolerance of your irrationalism, disapproval, ridicule, shaming and rallying, is only because you are a woman, and men do not expect truth, reason, and respect from women. We expect it from one another, and use violence against one another if we do not discourse with truth, reason, and respect. So by using irrationalism, disapproval, ridicule, shaming, and rallying you prove that you are inferior to men, and it is unseemly for men to beat children and females for the same reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 09:54:00 UTC

  • OWNERSHIP IN FACT: POWER. He who can kill a thing, owns a thing. He who can dest

    OWNERSHIP IN FACT: POWER.

    He who can kill a thing, owns a thing. He who can destroy a thing, owns a thing. He who can take a thing, owns a thing. Everything else is simply the pursuit of some condition even more preferable than killing, destroying, taking a thing. And the only thing preferable is reciprocity by which more can be obtained by productive, voluntary exchange than by killing, destroying, or taking a thing. Conversely, killing, destroying, and taking a thing is preferable to ir-reprocity, by which one’s things are taken by unproductive, involuntary, transfers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 09:54:00 UTC

  • ACTUALLY I LOVE WOMEN. I JUST HATE FEMINISM. And basically f-off if you think I

    ACTUALLY I LOVE WOMEN. I JUST HATE FEMINISM.

    And basically f-off if you think I don’t love women. I adore them. I have had amazing women in my life. I am never happy without a close relationship with a woman I love. And I prefer to be desperately monogamous.

    Man and woman are compatible. We are, in my experience, incomplete without each other. And if we can add to one another’s lives we can make each other more than we could be otherwise.

    But if a woman wants to compete with me as men do, then i’m gonna treat you as a man: first with demonstrated superiority in achievement, second with demonstrated superiority in rational and scientific argument, and thirdly with demonstrated superiority in physical violence.

    Why? Because men are happy knowing ‘their place in the pack’. And all our conflict evolved to produce a pack where ‘everyone does his duty’. Women evolved like chickens, to peck the hell out of each other. Women destroy each other, and destroy society if they get the opportunity.

    So don’t bring a chicken to a dogfight.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 08:37:00 UTC

  • THE IMPOLITIC TRUTH: WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP SIGNAL ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE (in respo

    THE IMPOLITIC TRUTH: WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP SIGNAL ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE

    (in response to May, LePen, Clinton, Merkel)

    Women distribute wealth earned by the inventions and aggressions of men. Just as they do to children. They do not resolve conflicts. They do not invent solutions. They cannot lead. They cannot rule.

    Any organization with a woman at its helm, that is not in the business of redistributing wealth or servicing **signals of wealth redistribution** (health, beauty, fitness, fashion) is an indication of organizational failure, and the board’s inability to find a strategic solution to the condition: that the board and shareholders are merely preserving income streams as the organization declines.

    As far as I can tell, this rule is exceptionless. Entrepreneurial competition, economic competition, and political competition, are all warfare by the three means of coercion possible to man: remuneration(business), gossip(politics), and violence(war).

    And with few exceptions, women in charge of companies of any scale fit this rule. Women in politics fit this rule. and female defense ministers (in europe there are a lot of them) fit this rule.

    Women redistribute the wealth earned by the inventions and aggressions of men. If they are in a position to do that, it’s a luxury good. At some point we must understand that such luxury goods are merely *signal* goods that are the result of man-made goods, and not in fact – goods proper.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 07:55:00 UTC

  • INTERNATIONAL ETHICS: I’M A SCIENTIST: NOT A RACIST, I’M A CLASSIST, AND A NATIO

    INTERNATIONAL ETHICS: I’M A SCIENTIST: NOT A RACIST, I’M A CLASSIST, AND A NATIONALIST. HERE IS WHY….

    I just want to respond to this: I don’t do racism. The problem for all races, and subraces as far as I can tell, is that we have all specialized in some form of extreme. East in industriousness and Neoteny and West in creativity and Neoteny. Africa in hostile-environment resistance and sociability and deep maturity. South Asians in warm weather survival and sociability. Desert (semitic) and steppe (all others) people in masculine features (small brains) and aggression. And the ashkenazi – the strangest of all – reversing sexual dimorphism and transferring female verbal skills to males.

    So given our specializations, the people one standard deviation above the white mean are all fine with each other. The problem is that the more of your population that is below a mean of 112/115, the more burden it places on adaptation to modernity because the cost of education and training is too high, and the cost of developing high trust norms is either too high or impossible, given the *incentives available by commercial means*.

    Hence why lower trust lower IQ populations do not rely on commercial incentives, and instead rely on religious, social, and physical incentives. In other words the old problem of the tripartite aristocracy remains: the lower class must be culled consistently and the middle class maximized, because it is this single issue that determines rates of progress. All the rest is merely institutions that assist us in cooperation.

    For these reasons I’m pro nationalism because the only moral means by which an underclass can be minimized is by its own kin, who do so in the interest of kin’s transcendence.

    That last sentence constitutes my standing on global political morality: domesticate your kin, and do not force others do domesticate your kin. If others are domesticating your kin, they are just in doing so, because your failure to domesticate your kin is the reason, and only reason, we are in conflict.

    Do not export your failures to others.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 07:43:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 04:41:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 04:03:00 UTC