Source: Facebook

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 13:52:00 UTC

  • Every attempt at a eugenic state has failed for the same reason: insufficient vi

    Every attempt at a eugenic state has failed for the same reason: insufficient violence to preserve it, and insufficient honesty in its constitution.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 13:52:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 05:17:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEE

    THE PROBLEM OF THE NEED FOR TAKING ACTION AND THE COMFORTING LIES SOME OF US NEED TO HELP US ACT

    Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires.

    There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.

    What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority.

    In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others.

    If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority.

    So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status.

    Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere.

    The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere.

    And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere.

    SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies.

    And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear.

    Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions.

    Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class.

    I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 03:03:00 UTC

  • MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN. Group solidarity, mem

    MEN, WOMEN, AND WHY MEN MUST FIGHT TO CONSTRAIN OUR WOMEN.

    Group solidarity, membership, consensus, marginal indifference, empathic solipsism, and a fear of the opposites, constitute the herd mentality, or what’s fashionably called r-selection bias, because it is in the female interest to preserve reciprocal insurance from other women at all costs, prevent her and her offspring’s ostracization at all costs, and to preserve her incentive to invest heavily in her costly offspring regardless of their merit to the tribe – which in at least half of cases is a total lack of merit, and a persistent unnecessary cost to the tribe.

    Men, on the other hand evolved domestication of animals for the simple reason that they’d been capturing and herding females for nearly their entire genetic existence, by systematically killing off the males of competing tribes and clans in order to obtain their territory and women. For men the preservation of their genes constitutes the preservation of their family, clan, and tribe – and his own offspring – event the concept of it, is a relatively new invention. Men women and children who are a cost to the tribe are merely tolerable or not given the current resources available. Moreover, just as women wish to be carried along by the redistribution of th tribe’s resources, many men wish their genes to be preserved from dilution by the contraint of female reproduction to ingroup members.

    For this reason men tilt heavily conservative, empirical, tribal, just as women tilt heavily redistributive, experiential, and universal.

    It’s in the reproductive interest of each. And marital family, clan, tribe and nation are the compromise that men and women make between their different strategies in order to maximize the interests of each in a NASH equilibrium.

    So when we say ‘men’ and ‘women’ we are making universal statemetns about the RESULT of the behavior of the set of individuals we are talking about.

    In other words, the trend in the tribe and nation continues because despite outliers, the majority behavior is existentially demonstrated. This empirical truth is what it is. But empirical truth is a masculine bias, because we can tolerate, and we must tolerate such truths in order to preserve our genetic interests.

    There is a very good reason that Boaz, Marx and Freud created the revolt against Locke, Darwin and Spencer: because the jews, like women, need to be carried along by the host tribe upon whose commons they parasitically survive. Jewish socialism and feminiism and progressivism are predictable political movmeents, becauset they are predictable group evolutionary strategies.

    SO we see in women the use of gossip rallying and shaming in order to obtain resources in exchange for sex, information sharing, and cooperation, and we see jews doing from priest, pulpit, book, newspaper, magazine, radio, television, theater and movie, the INDUSTRIALIZATION OF GOSSIP in order to create vast systems of outright lies, that like religion and gossip can be used to create political common interest among those with desires to parasitism on production, and the commons, while denying men the ability to persist their genes through the rapid increase in immigration of the lower classes.

    This is genocide by conspiracy with the female cognitive bias, in the same way that religion was spread by jews to women and slaves using this cognitive bias.

    Women lack agency because if they had men’s agency their offspring would never survive. Women lack agency because unless they stay members of groups they cannot survive. Women lack agency because truth is not a useful construct in the preservation of their genetics.

    Whereas men possess agency so that their kin can survive. Men possess agency because they must constantly defend the group from killing, capture, parasitism, and invasion which would dilute their genes. Men possess agency because truth is a necessary tool in the ascertainment of threats which must be acted upon if their genes are to survive against competitors in the present and future.

    For this reason we do not take men terribly seriously in their opinions about the care of the young (under 12), and we do not take women seriosly about the organizatino of a polity above the age of 12.

    Truth and the scientific construction of reality was invented by men because military epistemology is unforgiving, and protection of the herd from capture, dilution, or loss was necessary for the preservation of their genes. Gossip and the ‘social construction of reality’ was invented by women but documented by weak men, for the benefit it gave them in obtaining access to women, and profiting by the sale of ideas to women, becasue ‘comforting lies that produce safe grounds for offspring’ is the group evolutionary strategy of women.

    There is nothing challenging here other than that the success of the second era of great lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves, used the same technique as the first great ear of lies invented by the jews for sale to women and slaves – monotheistic Christianity.

    Men possess agnecy because they must, and women lack agency because they must.

    This is just how it is. And all the pseudoscientific lies of the Boazian, Marxist, and Freudians; and all the repeated gossip of the postmoderns, and the politically correct, do not change the truth.

    The compromise of family and nation we built is the compromise we must keep if we are to persist our men’s genes, or be conquered by the genes of others due to the lack of agency of our women.

    You cannot reason with cognitive biases caused by evolutionary necessity. We evovled these biases because of different reproductive strategies.

    We do not reason we fight.

    Fight for your people, your genes, or lose them to conquest. Women are taken and conquered and pressured into submission they willingly desire in exchange for the security of membership.

    Men must fight for their abilty to reproduce.

    Fight or die. We are not women. There is no free ride. The rest of the world’s men will give us none.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-22 02:32:00 UTC

  • ” Women don’t do bell curves. “— a friend. That really says it all. Its the be

    —” Women don’t do bell curves. “— a friend.

    That really says it all. Its the best meme I’ve run into. It’s not just that they can’t. It’s that THEY’RE AFRAID TO. Women are as afraid of bell curves as little girls are afraid of spiders. The bell curve is helpful to the bull, and fearful for the doe.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 14:08:00 UTC

  • (Yep. Definitely back in the saddle again. Still get tired too fast. Still somet

    (Yep. Definitely back in the saddle again. Still get tired too fast. Still something ‘not right’ physically. Not sure what it is. But the brain is really getting back on track. )


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 14:01:00 UTC

  • One of Jay Dyer’s New-Pseudoscientific Christian-Fundamentalists stopped by to a

    One of Jay Dyer’s New-Pseudoscientific Christian-Fundamentalists stopped by to annoy me today on the grounds that I am arrogant, and smart but apparently not wise.

    Well, you know, one who acts as a prosecutor of falsehoods in defense of the informational commons, is not the same as a partner with whom you fantasize by engaging in wishful thinking using terms you do not understand in order to fool yourself and others into the pretense that this pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, wordplay – much like all religions that preceded it – consists of more than shared reinforcement of nonsense words. Just as religions use wishful thinking to provide the incentives to create mutual reinforcement of nonsense words.

    Now, I understand that over the past year I have been working on religion, and that over the past year I have been feeding the alt-right as much rhetoric as I can manage in between bouts of obsessive work on my business.

    But neither my posturing (which most of you know is a marketing techique) – nor the prosecutorial stance ( which most of you know is something to use to circumvent the attempt to use entry into debate as a pretext for rallying and shaming, rather than the exploration of truth). So I choose the prosecutorial stance, in moral defense of the commons, and debate. This prosecutorialism is a hostile stance – by design. WHy? because we do not seek to agree upon action as they do in pursuit of allies, we only seek to prevent those actions that are harmful regardless of whether we create allies or enemies.

    By prosecuting we are not trying to engage parasites in cooperation, nor are we trying to win their consent, nor win their approval, nor even to assist them in understanding our position. Just the opposite: we are trying to determine if they are trying to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, or deceit, in order to obtain by fraud, rallying and shaming what they cannot obtain by fully informed voluntary exchange.

    In today’s little tiff I had to explain that the inability to falsify something is not a defense, but one of the ways we how we know that something is false. That something cannot be contradicted still requires that it be falsifiable.

    In the same vein, that something is beyond our perception, understanding, and reason means that we cannot testify to it. If we cannot testify to it we cannot claim it is true.

    That something is imaginable, does not mean it is possible. In fact, we can imagine many things but it is our attempt to falsify those things that determine whether they are truth candidates.

    One of the most common ways of falsifying a hypothesis is by providing a subjectively testable sequence of operations that demonstrate that there is a rational explanation for the phenomenon, where that explanation provides the user with a reward – usually psychological.

    We call this simple explanation a test of Occam’s razor, but it is far more than that. When we debate phenomenon in the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe so we must often rely on Occam’s razor for the purposes of further investigation, if for no other reason than choosing the cheapest avenue of exploration is what the physical world does of necessity. It does not try to be witty. It just does what it can at the lowest cost.

    But when we debate issues in human behavior, human epistemology, and human intuition, we do know the first principle – man is a rational actor, and therefore a consistent actor – and via empathy (subjective testing) we can test the incentives of others, and judge them rational or not, preferable or not, honest or not, deceitful or not.

    So the limits of Occam’s razor in the physical sciences, do not apply to human experience. If there is a very simple explanation for a phenomenon, we must provide a superior alternative explanation in order to falsify it. What we cannot do is state that this is ‘imperceptible or unimaginable, or beyond sensation’. That is just an appeal to the supernatural in order to engage in deception and nothing more.

    Now some people say that we cannot engage in self-deception, but this is only true in those cases where we are not trying to create external reinforcement of our wishful thoughts. In other words, we are trying to create the behavior in others that provides us the pretense of the world we desire even if we unconsciously know it’s false.

    Once enough of us believe a falsehood, one we wish to believe, we defend that existence of the reinforcement of that falsehood.

    This is the monotheist’s objective. This is modern monotheists objective (the left). This is the entire twentieth century: tell a lot of lies to women who, because of their irrational need for confirmation from others, rapidly grasp at wishful thinking of nearly any kind that is offered.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 13:48:00 UTC

  • “There are in nature neither rewards nor punishments — there are consequences.”

    —“There are in nature neither rewards nor punishments — there are consequences.” —-Ingersoll H/T William Butchman


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 09:17:00 UTC

  • You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to wh

    You see, I only have to testify to what I can know, and I only CAN testify to what I can know.

    So if I can’t know something I can’t testify to it. I can only say “I don’t know’.

    And in the tradeoff between “i don’t know ‘but’, and ‘I just don’t know so I can’t say’, we only need to look for perverse incentives.

    You might not realize it but I’m calling people who do what you do (and religious people as well) mere liars. Sophisticated lying. Lying to the self as well as others. But in the end, mere liars.

    We lie for many reasons. We lie to ourselves. We need the mystical part of religion to lie to ourselves. Becuase the curse of reason is that we know things we wish not to.

    And apparently the price of reason is that we must invent un-reason in order to compensate for the horror of reason.

    Yet some of us, have the courage to look fate in the face and de-conflate the moral and the true. We provide ourselves few psychological comforts other than the joy of life. We know that we must not harm, must not steal, must not tell black lies.

    But we do not know what is right or true. We know only what is wrong and what is error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception.

    The rest of knowledge and action and experience is up to us to choose from.

    But why do some of us have this courage and others not?

    It’s because for some of us, almost all our intuitions and ideas fail, so we need recipes to follow in order to succeed, simply by not failing.

    It is because for some of us, we need assistance deciding between our ideas so that we choose the ones least likely to fail.

    It is because for some of us, we must decide conflicts between others who have different perceptions of events – and to resolve those disputes without favoritism and fear of retaliation.

    In other words, becuase some of us are better at deciding than others.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-21 06:21:00 UTC