Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • ARE MEN NOT MORAL? —“If men are not moral, why do they have any conception of

    ARE MEN NOT MORAL?

    —“If men are not moral, why do they have any conception of good, let alone try to achieve it?”—Keith Smith

    Men are merely rational. We are capable of moral (cooperative) and immoral (parasitic), and evil (predatory) behaviors. We demonstrate that we are capable of moral, immoral, and evil behaviors.

    We choose good most often because it is rational. A few of us choose not good because it is rational – fairly often. A few of us choose evil, because it is rational given their emotional condition. We always manage our physical, emotional, and intellectual(frustration) budgets, and we

    We educate our young and each other in order to preserve the utility of cooperation for them, for ourselves, and the group, and to prevent retaliation for them, ourselves, and the group.

    The fact of the matter is that if you are strong, in the short term predation is most rewarding, at the cost of future retaliation. if you are not weak, In the medium term cooperation is most rewarding. In the long term, if you are weak, parasitism is most rewarding.

    And this is what we see: a predatory upper class, a productive middle class, and a parasitic underclass.

    There are no possible perpetual motion machines, including those of a polity, economy, and kin group.

    We must always defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, despite that some of us are strong and competent, some of us not weak but competent, and some of us weak and incompetent.

    We are, like all nature, bound by the basic laws of the universe, and in particular, the laws of thermodynamics. All civilization is merely an attempt to cooperate at larger and larger scales, by trading off near pleasures, for future returns.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 10:06:00 UTC

  • CURT CAN YOU REDUCE YOUR PHILOSOPHY TO A SINGLE SENTENCE? first, that’s impossib

    CURT CAN YOU REDUCE YOUR PHILOSOPHY TO A SINGLE SENTENCE?

    first, that’s impossible. Ask aristotle to do the same., and the result is meaningless. However, I can perhaps provide short, summary that does a reasonable job, even if it represents only ten percent of the philosophical system:

    Because of the disproportionate rewards for cooperation, the good is reducible to the moral, and the moral is reducible to reciprocity, and the result of reciprocity leaves only markets for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation, free of negative externality possible for our survival, and therefore the purpose of familial, social, economic, political, and national organizations is the continuous production of institutional means by which we assist in reciprocal cooperation at ever increasing scales, without admitting failure by sacrificing reciprocity.

    However, since markets are empirical and meritocratic, for this state of affairs to be possible requires that we incrementally reduce the scale of the underclass through negative (hanging, imprisonment) or positive means (zero-child, single-child and zero immigration), as well as continuing the evolution of suppression of parasitism by the incremental discovery of ‘crimes’ via the common law, universal standing, universal coverage, by tests of reciprocity.

    It is this system that has led to the success of the west in the early black sea bronze age, the ancient mediterranean, and modern atlantic worlds, and its failure that led to the ‘halting’ of the west in the medieval world.

    Since western civilization is unique in developing this set of ideas and dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty and disease, western civilization must preserve these meritocratic behaviors rather than succumb to the underclass populism of religion, postmodernism, pseudoscience, and consumerism – not just for our civlization, but for all mankind.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 09:56:00 UTC

  • Q: “CURT, HOW DO YOU HANDLE DEMANDS YOU DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS?” The economics of

    Q: “CURT, HOW DO YOU HANDLE DEMANDS YOU DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS?”

    The economics of answering questions. 😉

    1) if I think the person is asking an honest question and I can answer him without extraordinary effort, I do so.

    2) If I think the person is asking an honest question, but is being lazy by not doing the simple searches, I answer a bit snidely.

    3) If I think the person is asking an honest question but the cost of ‘helping’ that person is too high, I ignore it, or simply say so.

    4) If i think the person is challenging me, I state the truth: Truth survives criticism. It cannot be confirmed. One cannot, I cannot, defend a criticism against ignorance. One can only raise criticism if one possesses the knowledge to criticize. If one had the knowledge to criticize one would say so. If one asks for confirmation he shows (a) he is ignorant of the scientific method, (b) he lacks the knowledge to counter with an empirical or logical response showing how it cannot be true, or can be explained by more parsimonious statement, (c) he is really just imposing a cost on me by asking me to defend myself without offering a criticism to defend against. (d) therefore the individual is both incompetent, ignorant, and a liar.

    5) if includes ridicule, I see it as an attempt at deception by imposing a cost on me. I attack ridicule.Then I restate the central argument. I repeat the process of returning the insult and restating the central argument – each time with minor variations – as a means of ‘chanting’ the truth, thereby ‘using’ the platform the individual has given me to (a) demonstrate his dishonesty, ignorance, and incompetence, and (b) getting across my message thru repetition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 09:33:00 UTC

  • THE BEST AND MOST IMPORTANT 200 WORDS YOU CAN READ TODAY: All men are rational a

    THE BEST AND MOST IMPORTANT 200 WORDS YOU CAN READ TODAY:

    All men are rational actors – neither moral nor immoral, but rational. We achieve the good by eliminating the utility of choosing the bad. We eliminate the utility of choosing the bad by the promise of violence for violations of reciprocity. We test for the violation of reciprocity by demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of negative externality. We call this test of reciprocity Natural Law. We can only test this Natural Law by the use of independent judges and juries to discover violations of it by sympathetic testing. We can perform that sympathetic testing when observing testimony. We can sympathetically test from testimony because our ability cooperate was made possible by an ability to sympathize with intent. By sympathizing with intent, we can discover malincentives and malintentions. We can then judge malincentives and malintentions, and record those judgements for future use in what we call the ‘common law.’. But for this system to work at all, those who testify, the jury, and the judges must give higher priority to the commons than to their self, kin, or organizational interests. And so they themselves must be subject to the same demand for reciprocity as those that they adjudicate. This is the secret to western civilization: truthfulness of warrior cult spread across all men, via service in militia and army.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 09:05:00 UTC

  • VIA NEGATIVA, STARTING WITH TIME Once you understand that I’ve based all of huma

    VIA NEGATIVA, STARTING WITH TIME

    Once you understand that I’ve based all of human action on saving time, or rather increasing the caloric returns on time, then you have some chance of grasping the importance of the use of disruptive heroic virtue signals, profiting from rule, and underclass culling that permitted the west to innovate FASTER than the rest, despite never being first.

    The use of Via-Negativa is so important yu cannot imagine until you’ve been working with it for a few years. We make the world better by elimination. A process of elimination. We progress by eliminating impediments.

    Start thinking of eliminating murder, harm, damage, theft, fraud, fraud by disinformation, externalization, free riding, conspiracy of common interest, conspiracy of common intent, fictionalism and disinformation, conversion, immigration, over-reproduction, financialization (warfare), economic warfare, military warfare, displacement, and ethnocide.

    Then start thinking of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit.

    When you eliminate the bad, we need only choose from the good. Make room for the market for goods, by eliminating the markets for bads.

    It’s not that complicated, it’s just the opposite of what we’ve been taught for all of human history.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 08:50:00 UTC

  • CHINESE VS WESTERN VIRTUE SIGNALLING —“What the fuck does [very different virt

    CHINESE VS WESTERN VIRTUE SIGNALLING

    —“What the fuck does [very different virtue signaling in China] mean? Curt Doolittle. You are still here, explain.”— Anon

    Sorry, I missed the OP’s request for an answer.

    1) Ethnic europeans demonstrate higher, more consistent, more constant creativity (innovation) in all walks of life. (See: Charles Murray. Nicholas Wade)

    2) Some of this can be attributed to the higher occurrence of personality traits (a) openness to experience, (b) ‘worry/anxiety’, (so called ‘Neuroticism’) in ethnic europeans.

    3) Much of this can be attributed to the lower underclass burden, and therefore higher trust, superior norms and institutions of western civilization. (See: Garrett Jones)

    4) The majority of this effect can be attributed to the various uniquenesses of western civilization’s use of ‘heroism’ (climbing the dominance hierarchy by demonstrated works – or perhaps more so that climbing the dominance hierarchy is not prohibited as it is in many other cultures) as well as the competition between small states (princedoms) for talent in order for the nobility to virtue signal. (the origins of which we understand fairly clearly: See Emmanuel Todd, Karen Armstrong, and J.P.Mallory et al.)

    SUMMARY:

    For cultural, genetic, and demographic reasons, western Virtue Signaling has fostered individual risk taking, achievement, and reward at the cost of hierarchical disruption more so than all other civilizations combined – (at least until the merger of cultural marxism (the frankfurt school’s ‘critical theory’) and the French then Anglo postmodernists, (which you see evidence in the comments by some of the effeminate ‘useful idiots’ above).

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 08:40:00 UTC

  • Teaching is not a skill, it is a talent. That’s the data. The vast majority of t

    Teaching is not a skill, it is a talent. That’s the data. The vast majority of teachers are not smart enough to teach more than the three R’s. That’s the data. The vast majority of professors are not smart enough to teach university level material. That’s the data. The university is rife with malincentives – departmental advancement, rather than teaching. That’s the data. The vast majority of university money is not going to the advancement of the people and their nation. That’s the data. The vast majority of degrees accomplish only what high school education should accomplish: assortment of people for different workplaces, by IQ, organization, and Industriousness. That’s the data. The vast majority of student debt funds this hierarchy of malincentives via taxation and impoverishment of students in first earlier, then later life. That’s the data. The Academy, State, Media, Finance complex benefits from this set of malincentives and contrary evidence, at the expense of the working and middle classes.

    This has to end.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 07:33:00 UTC

  • Fell asleep listening to Hillary Putnam. Youtube on autoplay. Chomsky gets into

    Fell asleep listening to Hillary Putnam. Youtube on autoplay. Chomsky gets into the mix. I spend the whole F–king night dreaming I’m arguing with Chomsky and he won’t let me get a word in edgewise.

    My version of hell.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 07:21:00 UTC

  • Retweeted JayMan (@JayMan471): No. Because you should *never* trust scientists t

    Retweeted JayMan (@JayMan471):

    No. Because you should *never* trust scientists to interpret their data if you want to really know for yourself. https://t.co/QgOQZDKYXV

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-20 20:51:00 UTC

  • is the fastest way to impress a woman?

    https://t.co/3FSr8vInz0What is the fastest way to impress a woman?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-20 18:21:00 UTC