Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Men get rejected about a hundred times a day, and most of the time we aren’t eve

    Men get rejected about a hundred times a day, and most of the time we aren’t even interested, but get rejected anyway. lol Women on the other hand, seem to be freaking overwhelmed when they get rejected. This is because when a man is rejected, WHAT the woman rejects is his status, and his genes, and his entertainment value and his caretaking ability. But his input into the sexual relationship is minimal. And the cost to him of that rejection is limited to the time he has currently invested. The cost to a woman is inverse of that. A lifetime of caretaking for a child, and some period of caretaking for the man. When a woman is rejected its saying that all that cost to you isn’t worth even this little cost to me.

    The problem for modern man, is that under the current legal system, you have to be as selective with the distribution of your genes as a woman is in selection of your genes. Our instincts don’t match this legally artificial circumstance. So a woman’s reaction needs to understand that because of the law, male rejection is now equal to female rejection: sex is extremely costly, and risky. Not so much for the lower classes who have little economic promise. But for middle and upper class males, a woman is absurdly expensive.

    Until we have a male pill. At that point women can’t entrap you. And having been the repeated victim of female entrapment, in no small part because I am cursed with ‘one shot guaranteed success of pregnancy’ I am highly sensitive to this problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 04:47:00 UTC

  • “FEMINISM: SOCIALISM IN PANTIES” lol Well, I’m all for universal property rights

    “FEMINISM: SOCIALISM IN PANTIES”

    lol Well, I’m all for universal property rights. But there is nothing feminist about that. That’s just being a decent human.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 04:33:00 UTC

  • (Thank you for all you do. You’re smart, funny, talented, articulate and all-aro

    (Thank you for all you do. You’re smart, funny, talented, articulate and all-around amazing. 🙂 )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 04:32:00 UTC

  • A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH (reposted for archival purposes) I’m arguing about ne

    A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH

    (reposted for archival purposes)

    I’m arguing about necessary properties of truth (knowledge claims) not mere utility (correspondence), which are two different things. Determining Truth is a matter of testing our knowledge of use (external correspondence), of knowledge of internal consistency, and knowledge of construction. I don’t think I’m really addressing the problem of hypothesis creation (conjecture). I’m addressing the problem of truth. I think ultimate truth is addressed already: unknowable, ultimately parsimonious, proof of knowledge of correspondence, consistency and construction, for any given theoretical, non-tautological statement. Since we cannot know this we can only testify to the truth of the most currently most parsimonious, proof of knowledge, correspondence, consistency and construction for any given theoretical, non-tautological statement. These two definitions are often conflated: truth we can currently testify to, and the truth we aspire to one day testify to.

    For me to succeed in quashing postmodernism, mysticism, and even ‘continental and cosmopolitan rationalist empty verbalisms’ in political and legal speech, then I have to get to the (unsolved) nature of truth. Which I think I have. (above)

    All other variations on truth are simply analogies for proofs that make use of fewer properties of necessary truth. LIke “numbers” we use the word “truth”, imprecisely, as an analogy in multiple contexts.

    Only one ‘truth’ can be demonstrated to exist: performative truth. Everything else is a rough analogy. And almost all is proof not truth. And most of those proofs are limited to very narrow conditions.

    I find it terribly interesting that the problem of truth was not solved, despite all the work on it. And the reason it was not solved, is that all statements are ethically contingent. And that is a troublesome thing to tell a scientist or logician trying to escape the false ethics of religious mysticism and that tradition, rather than the objective ethics and morality of propertarianism

    Maybe this is a greater change in conventional thought than appears to me. I know that for mathematicians the idea that they’re utilitarian traditions and contrivances are unethical (untrue) appears absurd. But I’m sure to most critical rationalists, the idea of using analogies as truth claims as immoral and unethical might seem absurdly burdensome. And I know that for Austrians, the idea that apriorism is immoral and unethical is not only absurd but extremely burdensome. I know that for average speakers, the fact that using the word “is” for other than existence, set membership or location (specifically for properties) is extremely cognitively burdensome.

    But there is a vast difference between internal dialog, and public speech. And while internal dialog can suffice for utilitarian purposes, and places no criminal, ethical or moral constraint upon others, the moment we speak , write or publish to others, we have entered into an ethical and moral realm, and are engaged in unethical and immoral action if we make truth claims that we cannot demonstrate we have the knowledge to make. If we must state the truth in public, or hypothesis in public, or rumour in public, or myth in public, is it not immoral and unethical to misrepresent one’s statement?

    Only under very rare conditions may we make truth claims. In the most part we are communicating rough analogies, others we are hypothesizing, and rarely are we engaged theorizing – and almost never are we capable of making truth claims.

    Under performative truth, we are making a promise. That promise is implied. Most of the time, we are not making a truth claim. But an hypothetical claim. And that is implied too. The question is, do we know when we are doing one or the other.

    And I think not.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 04:22:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT IS TO SUPPRESS RETRIBUTION FOR ANTI-S

    THE PURPOSE OF AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT IS TO SUPPRESS RETRIBUTION FOR ANTI-SOCIAL, UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL ACTIONS.

    (and it’s genocidal)

    The purpose of an investigatory police, is to concentrate knowledge of troublesome individuals and groups into the hands of specialists. So that crime can be investigated and reduced if not eliminated, by the suppression of, control of, and elimination of troublesome individuals and groups.

    We require, an investigatory police force, in the case of anonymous crimes, we cannot all of us possess such intimate knowledge of the minority who engage in career criminality.

    The more immoral the society, the more unethical the society, the more anti-social a society, the more need for various kinds of police to suppress retaliation against those who we KNOW, who are NOT anonymous, and who have committed anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

    When we cannot use the courts to sue for restitution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions, the state must suppress our retribution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

    The state currently punishes retribution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions – whereas in history, the job of all men, was to punish violations of anti-social, unethical, and immoral norms.

    So instead, the state has LICENSED AND ADVOCATED anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions, by forbidding and punishing retribution for, and suppression of, anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

    The state is the manufacturer of anti-social, unethical and immoral action.

    Why?

    In America, it is the conquest of conservative protestantism (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

    In Britain it is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

    In Europe is is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

    In Canada it is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples (the french, and now the immigrants).

    In Russia they are trying to prohibit the conquest of their low trust people, by even lower trust peoples.

    REVERSE COLONIZATION

    We are being colonized so that statists can free ride, and the lower classes can live off the productivity of the middle classes and prevent the middle classes from breeding in sufficient numbers to retain their economic competitiveness and their high trust norms.

    If colonialism was immoral then surely reverse colonialism is immoral.

    It is certainly genocide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 03:55:00 UTC

  • THE CONSPIRACY OF GENETIC WHISPERS 1) A cacophony of genetic whispers. 2) Intuit

    THE CONSPIRACY OF GENETIC WHISPERS

    1) A cacophony of genetic whispers.

    2) Intuition as propagandist for genes.

    3) Consciousness as the victim of propaganda.

    4) Reason and will as advocate for consciousness.

    5) Communication as negotiation for our genes.

    6) Negotiation as opportunistic cooperation in support of our genes.

    You know, academia, religion, media and advertising work by framing, then overloading: by saturating your environment with messages designed to produce a behavioral end. If there is enough saturation in the environment it becomes almost impossible to ignore the stimuli. We have difficulty compartmentalizing environmental stimuli. (Although smarter people much less so than average and below average people – in fact, smarter people have a hard time sensing saturation, and merely take advantage of the circumstances.) So framing and overloading overwhelm our skepticism and reason – especially when we perceive it as advantageous to make use of the falsehood rather than to determine whether it is true or not.

    Libertarians are interesting because we are the most moral people – the people least likely to impose costs upon others. That morality is our genes whispering to us too.

    But like all other victims of overloading by genetic whispers, we fallaciously assume that it is rational for others to adopt our genetic strategy. It is not. It is rational for others to adopt THEIR genetic strategy.

    What we have right, is that all have equal chances of pursuing their genetic strategy without harming the genetic strategy of others, if we cooperate on means, even though we cannot cooperate on ends. This will suppress the least fit genes, and expand the better, if not most fit genes (excellence doesn’t really spread as much as ‘good’.) At present we are murdering (genocide) the better genes to fund the worst genes, in the greatest consumption of genetic capital in human history.

    This cannot continue. And if it does, it will turn out that our genes were wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 03:32:00 UTC

  • MORAL INTUITION IS JUST YOUR GENES TALKING That’s it. You might be able to intui

    MORAL INTUITION IS JUST YOUR GENES TALKING

    That’s it. You might be able to intuit very simple common moral values, but your gender, social class, economic class, and family structure are reflections of your genes, genetic history, and are simple expressions of those genes.

    And your genes are competing with other genes – either with more numerous “worse” genes, or less numerous “better” genes, for higher status, better allies, and better mates. And as such we advocate if not outright demand adherence to our moral code in order to cooperate with others. We offer cooperation to those who benefit our genes, and deny it to those who compete with our genes.

    And what little reason we can muster, and struggle to put under the discipline of our will, is subject to the multitudinous whispers of those genes as they influence our intuition (subconscious), and our intuition influences our perception (consciousness), and our consciousness influences our reason.

    Our will is vastly outnumbered by an invisible hierarchy of secret police that conspires to serve our genes regardless of our reason and will.

    And so we cannot rely upon our moral intuition to determine what is best for anything other than ourselves. We require measures of everyone else’s moral intuitions – the voices of their genes.

    But even if we possess such data does that mean that there is some optimum moral code for all of us to adhere to? Not really. We are optimistic cooperators, and constant competitors.

    While we cannot agree upon ends, since that would mean the willing sacrifice of some of our genes for those of others, and result in dysgenic devolution, which cannot be cast as ‘good’, we can agree to cooperate on means, such that we do not constrain one another’s genes, nor assume we have the wisdom to choose which genes best suit human reality.

    PROPERTARIANISM IS CALCULABLE – THE LOGICAL ARTICULATION OF INTUITIONS TO RATIONAL FORM

    Propertarianism, the missing logic of cooperation, the missing logic of ethics, the missing logic of politics, allows us to discuss all moral systems in transparent, rational terms.

    Praxeology was a failure. But it doesn’t have to be. Propertarianism repairs praxeology.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 02:51:00 UTC

  • MOST IMPORTANT BOOK: IT ALL BEGINS WITH WAR OK. So I really want the history of

    http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Warfare-John-Keegan/dp/0679730826THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK: IT ALL BEGINS WITH WAR

    OK. So I really want the history of economics to hold the social science’s intellectual high ground. But the fact of the matter is, that after consuming most of intellectual history, in hundreds of books, the most important book on social science that I have ever read remains The History of Warfare by Keegan. It is a work of insight, depth and scholarship that none of the religious, social, political or economic historians have come close to matching.

    We live our warfare first. That is the foundation of our civilizations. Everything else rests upon it – and more importantly, everything else depends upon it.

    Our ability to deny others control over geography, determines our ability to construct institutions, which determines our ability to accumulate capital.

    All property is constructed after all, from the ability to deny others use of that which we claim a monopoly of control over.

    All prosperity depends upon the formation of property rights. And all property rights depend on the organized application of violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 02:43:00 UTC

  • NERO: WORST PRESIDENT BECOMES WORLDS WORST POLITICIAN

    http://www.hoover.org/research/coming-world-disorderOBAMA NERO: WORST PRESIDENT BECOMES WORLDS WORST POLITICIAN

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 00:39:00 UTC

  • Francis Joseph, once asked in a moment of candour by Theodore Roosevelt what he

    —Francis Joseph, once asked in a moment of candour by Theodore Roosevelt what he considered to be the role of a monarch in the present day and age, replied: “To protect my nations from their governments!”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 00:17:00 UTC