Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Weaponization of the feminine reproductive strategy of intuiting, resisting, dis

    Weaponization of the feminine reproductive strategy of intuiting, resisting, displays of rejection, ridiculing, criticizing, gossiping, rallying, and shaming, all of which impose costs (increase frictions) on the status anticipate for organizing to concentrate capital of all kinds, so that we cannot concentrate it, through aggressive eugenic selection. In other words, they manipulate our high trust society by imposing costs on the status signals a heroic civilization uses in order to form high risk and costly organizations.

    Women ‘let through’ only those things they agree with, and they rally and shame against anyting they don’t agree with.

    the problem is that what they agree with is almost always bad for the men.

    This is the Jewish strategy as well, and it was highly influential under the ancient empire, and the modern empire, when a combination of new media in the modern, and discounted and safe transport in the ancient world made preachers and letters possible.

    In modernity we not only enfranchised women and jews but we broke the constraint of debate-between peers by the use of cheap mass communication.

    We created an amplifier for lies, pseudoscience, and mysticism, consumable by the masses, and we did not regulate the use of that amplifier (media) to that which was truthful, material, and scientific.

    Why? Because in our ancient tradition, when only voices, letters, and books (all costly) could be met with equal voice, letter, and book, only the aristocracy could afford to speak, and only aristocracy was afforded such speech, and between the violence on could incurr via duel or assassination, one was reasonably careful about what one said.

    By enfranchising the underclasses, enfranchising women and then jews (all of whom vote as women, and supply argumentative weaponry to women and the underclasses) and giving them discount on communication, without regulating that communication to the true, we let them use technology to create sufficient lies, while we ourselves maintained our ancient aristocratic prohibitions, knowing that we could incur violence.

    WE CREATED THE DOUBLE STANDARD by not continuing to enforce, by violence the previous standard of truthfulness that had been enforced by violence for 5000 years.

    THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE

    Raise the cost of lying, fraud, and deceit by enforcing the demand for truth and science in political discourse. And we raise the cost through the application of violence.

    The left cannot survive the truth, which is why they invented so many lies.

    We cannot admit the truth (at least we couldn’t before): that we have domesticated the world at the point of a spear, sword, bayonet, bullet, shell, and missile – against it’s interests. And we are continuing to domesticate the world by forcing primitives into the market much against their will.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-26 07:53:00 UTC

  • WHY SOME SMART PEOPLE THINK PROPERTARIANISM IS ‘STUPID SHIT’. —“I seem to unde

    WHY SOME SMART PEOPLE THINK PROPERTARIANISM IS ‘STUPID SHIT’.

    —“I seem to understand what Curt says and proposes, but many smart people I hold in high esteem seem to think it’s all stupid shit. I don’t know if I’m dumb for not seeing what they see or if there’s a breakdown of communication between the two groups or WTF.”—Elcid Campeador

    It’s a language problem. How do you talk about comparative experience, psychology, ethics, sociology, politics, economics, and group competitive strategy – all of which are heavily loaded, with normative, moral, and metaphysical value judgments, and even pseudoscientific and scientific judgments.

    Property rights theory provided a language for small-scale interpersonal cooperation. Money, finance, economics for larger scale cooperation. Haidt provided a connection between evolutionary biology and moral instincts. I translated that connection into property and financial language. Then I translated cognitive science and psychology into that language. Then I translated political argument into the same language. Then I translated group evolutionary strategy into the same language.

    So it sounds like word salad if you don’t know what I’m doing. If you have some experience with both the philosophy of science, AND finance AND economics, it’s a bit easier.

    And that’s the reason aspies like it: because it’s very precise language, and it doesn’t require that you intuit emotional priors. So the people who are very good at it quickly have an autistic bent.

    And the people who find it confusing have an intuitionistic bias, and I (we) are asking them to climb a steeper learning curve – to re-learn at personal cost, rather than just learn in order to solve a personal problem of desiring a language to express what they already speak.

    You can’t imagine how hard it was to learn to write and speak this way. It’s a lot like writing software – syntactically unforgiving. It took me years and years of work to incrementally evolve from completely incomprehensible to kicking off a few insights, to appealing to aspies, to slowly and painfully learn to express these ideas to normal people.

    So most critics don’t know all of that. They want ‘meaning’ from communication. But my work is designed to solve the problem of the Cosmopolitans and the Jews before them: how to make it extremely difficult to engage in deceit of the human mind by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, propaganda, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    So while most people want DISCOUNTED METHOD of obtaining meaning, my work is designed to impose costs on meaningful speech so that lying and fraud is almost impossible.

    But once you start thinking in human operations, voluntary transfers, costs and premiums and discounts, then you eventually think very differently, and you see (correctly) that all human speech is either honest negotiation for mutual gain, or practical attempt at deceit for the purpose of obtaining a discount at someone else’s expense.

    And that’s when the light bulbs start going on and the world appears as a very different place.

    So I completely understand why people think it’s nonsense.

    That’s because for a class of people it solves a problem (very analytical people) a cost of learning – and for another class of people it imposes a problem: a cost of re-learning.

    Note that I used propertarian reasoning to explain this difference in behaviors. It is a very powerful language for commensurable argument of diverse portfolios of cognitive, moral, cultural, and metaphysical bias and priors.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-26 07:37:00 UTC

  • a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away

    a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away….

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 19:57:00 UTC

  • Why are conservative women so sane and good company? Why aren’t there more of th

    Why are conservative women so sane and good company?

    Why aren’t there more of them?

    (Thank god for the female friends I have.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 17:33:00 UTC

  • IT”S NOT THE ANSWERS THAT ARE COMPLEX, ITS THE LANGUAGE —I am not convinced th

    IT”S NOT THE ANSWERS THAT ARE COMPLEX, ITS THE LANGUAGE

    —I am not convinced that the answers are so complex—Stefan Panturu

    Stefan,

    You’re right. It’s not the answers that are complex, it’s the use of legal, financial, economic, and genetic language to express traditional moral, ethical, spiritual and cultural ideas.

    This rather goofy and pretentious sounding language makes it very HARD to say something unless you really understand it.

    And that’s the whole point: the reduction or elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    This language allows us to state both our traditional cultural group strategy in scientific terms, but it also allows us to demonstrate that the left is nothing but a bunch of lying thieves.

    So, yes, Propertarianism is a terrible language for COMMUNICATING, but it’s an exceptional language for speaking the truth – because you can’t speak it if you don’t know it.

    And it’s an exceptional language for prosecuting the left and their religion of lying, shaming rallying, propagandizing and pseudoscience.

    Mathematics, Logic, Economics, law and finance all have very specific languages for very important reasons. We are not used to discussing manners, ethics, morals, economics, politics and group evolutionary strategy in those languages.

    But it turns out that we can. And because we can, we can defeat the left with truth just as the left defeated moral men with pseudoscience, propaganda and lies.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 17:25:00 UTC

  • “Curt Doolittle’s ‘Human Husbandry’ thesis is so fresh as a Red Pill that I cons

    —“Curt Doolittle’s ‘Human Husbandry’ thesis is so fresh as a Red Pill that I consider it a Purple Pill, it’s end game knowledge that really puts human history and the rise and fall of nations in clear perspective.”–Gary Knight

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 17:08:00 UTC

  • “The process of being Red Pilled means realizing that the narratives of the day

    —“The process of being Red Pilled means realizing that the narratives of the day are lies and that the institutions of ‘authority’ are merely means of predation.

    Those who are Blue Pilled still believe the lies that the Priests of Modernity spew.

    So we are in this weird situation where we are dealing with Red Pilled people who can’t figure out that we are NOT lying to them (because our answers are too complex) and are just going with their gut and hating anything that they can’t grasp intuitively. 🙂 “—- William Butchman

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 16:43:00 UTC

  • (speculative uncomfortableness) —“What do you think is the evolutionary reason

    (speculative uncomfortableness)

    —“What do you think is the evolutionary reason for Jews exhibiting relatively poor spatial aptitude when compared to European gentiles? I understand the basis for the selective pressure within Jewish communities for a certain level of verbal and math prowess, I’m just lost why that didn’t carry over to visuospatial ability?”—

    The only theory that makes any sense and corresponds with the data, is that they selected for feminine traits in men: memory for memorizing the doctrine, and verbal acumen for arguing Jewish laws, and interpreting scripture, and dealing with contracts – as well as perception in judging character. This is probably why they have such a high percentage of homosexuals, and even heterosexual often Jews exhibit what we think of as feminine traits: hence the (admittedly exaggerated) principle: “All Jews are female”.

    Imagine that out of every 150 people we got the smartest guy to have as many kids as we could afford, to pay for, as long as he would teach us his knowledge in exchagne, and act as a judge in matters of dispute? How many generations would that take? It takes a lot fewer than you’d think. Humans evolve quickly under intentional selection. In just two hundred years the affect would be dramatic.

    So Jews started out as a Semitic people, meaning with higher alertness (which is interesting) and higher aggression, and then some moved to the west, married western wives, within just a generation or two started inbreeding, and use extremely (good) eugenic reproduction, but selected for what we call feminine traits: memory and excellence at expression.

    Why do jews pursue a female reproductive strategy? (rallying and shaming, running, and … well, not engaging in the most productive of businesses so to speak). Becuase it’s high return.

    So, they evolved themselves to do so. The reason is lost in history, but pastoral sheep herders from arid regions tend to have many competitors and demonstrate (high) particularlism. The group has NEVER been able to hold a decent military, nor hold property for long periods. Nor form a durable, advanced, centralized government.

    We evolved to pursue a relatively balanced relationship between males and females for reasons that I think we understand. Scarce populations in cold climates are more dependent upon one another.

    The asians we do not know the reason for their skill set, other than they have dramatically lowered their testosterone and sexual maturity and obtained longer lives for doing so.

    Muslims chose a more masculine one. Exaggeratedly so, and did so LATE in history, so like any technology they have the most recent.

    (each group’s history is pretty interesting in this regard).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 15:07:00 UTC

  • Property, Family, Clan, Tribe, and Nation are unnatural to women. They are the m

    Property, Family, Clan, Tribe, and Nation are unnatural to women.

    They are the means by which we domesticated them.

    And they rebel against them whenever given the opportunity.

    We evolved to kill competitors to capture, herd, and domesticate women so that we could control our reproduction.

    Women are universalist for the simple reason that they are always captors, and so they seek the most secure captor.

    Why does this matter? Because we are exceptionally good at domesticating males – they’re much more dangerous in the short term. But we forget that while we developed many institutions to domesticate males, we created just as many to domesticate women.

    It is also true that the purpose of monogamy was to domesticate undesirable males.

    This asymmetry between women and men and marriage is the institutional problem we have not yet solved.

    Many more men are undesirable than women are undesirable.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 14:37:00 UTC

  • DEFINITIONS: PARTICULARISM VS UNIVERSALISM Particularism: “Exclusive attachment

    DEFINITIONS: PARTICULARISM VS UNIVERSALISM

    Particularism: “Exclusive attachment to one’s own group, party, or nation.”

    1) Individualism vs Collectivism …(PROPERTY)

    2) Particularism vs Universalism .(PEOPLE)

    3) Nationalism ..vs Globalism …..(GOVERNMENT)

    ——————————————————–

    ….MASCULINE..VS…FEMININE

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 14:36:00 UTC