Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Updated Oct 31, 2019, 7:55 PM

    Updated Oct 31, 2019, 7:55 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 19:55:00 UTC

  • starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute—“Doolittle starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is not static; it changes according to its placement in the universe”. The Theory of Relativity was NOT invented by Einstein, but by Henri Poircaré….”—

    What the f–k does that have to do with anything I said. (a) einstein invented the frame, period, end of story, (b) like all of us he combined recent works of others, into a solution none of them had seen – as do all thinkers, myself included, (c) you clearly are not informed or smart enough to comment on this subject.

    Yes, einstein gets an undeserved and disproportionate amount of the credit. It’s equally deserved to Lorentz and Especially Hilbert, who is far smarter than einstein.

    Yes, there is a very great similarity between Einstein getting the rewards from what was lorentz and hilbert’s work, just as Zuckerberg is getting rewards from what was the brother’s work.

    Read this and learn:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

    Likewise, just because I united popper’s falsification, strawson’s performative truth, chomsky’s grammar, and hayek’s law – and explained why poincare, brouwer and bridgman lost the opertionalist argument, doesn’t mean I”m plagiarizing, any more than einstein taking the various works of others, adding to and uniting them.

    We all stand on the shoulders of others, and all of us move the needle one step at a time forward. Yes, Poincare and lorentz (and maxwell) solved the underlying problem. But no they couldn’t provide the completion of it. I know your motivation is to discredit their only ‘virtuous’ intellectual amidst the long line of criminal liars all the way back into their origins. But it doesn’t work. It just makes you look stupid.

    Don’t stomp on a post to for attention, or to vent from failure to understand, or stress of your own mental reorganization. All you do is tell us you feel out of control in your life. Instead, Post to contribute. And Ask don’t assert.Updated Oct 31, 2019, 8:32 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 19:50:00 UTC

  • “…Most christians think…”— “Most christians” thoughts and wants don’t matt

    —“…Most christians think…”—

    “Most christians” thoughts and wants don’t matter, because if we don’t reform christianity it will be under the muslim boot within this century and exterminated here as everywhere else. Faith is a contract with one another between members of that faith for the discounts on status, emotion, and reason provided under it. It has no bearing the behavior of others, and no bearing on nature, no bearing on this planet, this solar system, or this universe. This is a question of survival. Either reform this way and together we win, or maintain your selfishness and arrogance and your people, your religion, your culture, your civlization will die, and be erased from history as the Jews and muslims always erase the truth from history – including the christian destruction of the ancient world, its knowledge, it’s schools, its arts, its civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 19:28:00 UTC

  • THE ECONOMICS AND ETHICS OF ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS (this one is going to hurt. hold

    THE ECONOMICS AND ETHICS OF ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS

    (this one is going to hurt. hold on to something)

    There is no god. Only the god imagined by the faithful such that they preserve the peace between them by prohibition on variation in strategy, and prohibition on debate, and prohibition on learning, and prohibition on innovation and evolution. It’s a contract with one another written in fiction.

    I agree that there is value to the faithful in the production of psychological mindfulness from certainty, conformity, under this contract written in fiction. It re-creates the safety of the herd for those who lack agency, by casting submission, conformity, stagnation as heroic.

    I also understand that there is value in the freedom from emotional burden, intellectual burden, that the rest of us bear on behalf of Christians, who are nothing but free-riders – Christians ‘free ride’ on our emotional, and mental hard labors.

    The feminine christian perpetuates the female reproductive strategy of worrying only about the safety of her nest, while the men do the hard labor of transforming reality into safety and resources which she can spend on her nest, herself, her offspring.

    Yet as christians daily demonstrate, she maintains utility in hostility to his breaking of her illusion, because then she would have to acknowledge the debt, and provide something in trade.

    Y’all are parasites, liars, and thieves unless you fight – hard, and soon. Just parasites.

    Why do you think islamism, marxism, feminism, and postmodernism, make the same promise of equality, in exchange for the same contract written in fiction, that the will work together to live parasitically upon the emotional and intellectual efforts of ‘men’: The Aristocracy.

    So pay your way.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 19:22:00 UTC

  • PACKS: WE ARE HUNTING THE LARGEST PREY. 🙂 (for Sheepdog Nomocracy folks) —“Ri

    PACKS: WE ARE HUNTING THE LARGEST PREY. 🙂

    (for Sheepdog Nomocracy folks)

    —“Risk to predators hunting dangerous prey is an emerging area of research and could account for possible persistent differences in gray wolf (Canis lupus) pack sizes. … Our data support the hypothesis that the persistence of differences in pack-size may be perpetuated by differences in risk to wolves of their primary prey, and we highlight two important extensions of this idea: (1) the potential for wolves to provision and defend injured pack-mates from other wolves and (2) the importance of less-risky, buffer prey to pack-size persistence and year-to-year variation.”—

    WOLF SUPER-PACKS (PAC’s? 😉 ) EXIST

    —“In the winter of 2010-11, a “super pack” of wolves numbering up to 400 reportedly terrorized the Russian town of Verkhoyansk (population 1,300) in northern region of Yakutia, one of the remotest inhabited areas in the northern hemisphere. More than 30 horses were killed in just four days, according to local officials, and teams of hunters were established to patrol neighbourhoods and shoot the wolves on sight.”—

    NORTHERN WOLVES ARE BIGGEST

    —“Wolves increase exponentially in size the further they are from the equator. Wolves of the tropics are often no larger than medium sized dogs, but those of the far north (Alaska, Canada, and Russia) can be in excess of 120lbs. The largest wolf ever killed in North America was taken in Alaska in 1939 and tipped the scales at 175lbs. In the former Ukraine SSR, a still more massive wolf was killed that weighed 190lbs. There are unsubstantiated reports of 200lb+ specimens, presumably alpha males in areas that boast a steady food supply.”—

    WOLVES IN THE AMERICAS ARE NICER

    —“Wolves in the Americas are less likely to attack humans than elsewhere in the world.There are very few verifiable records of wolf attacks in the US and Canada, but in Europe and Asia, wolves are far nastier. Historical accounts indicate over 3,000 people killed in France between 1580-1830. In the Middle Ages throughout Europe, special structures were built along highways for travelers to take refuge from roving packs. The wolves of India and Russia are also particularly well known to claim human victims. During World War I, soldiers from the Allied and Central Forces were occasionally forced to join forces fighting off starving wolves attracted by the scent of blood on the battlefield.”—

    NO MERCY

    —“Wolves eat their prey alive.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 19:03:00 UTC

  • Brandon Hayes, You contribute to the movement for all of us everywhere, and in p

    Brandon Hayes,

    You contribute to the movement for all of us everywhere, and in particular in your work not only managing the institute’s social media presence, but as ‘editor’ or ‘archivist’ or both, by your building topic-based indexes of all our contributions. To some degree you are building a ‘book’ as well.

    You are also a thought leader, and one of the few of us producing long form, but I am not providing editing or advice on these posts and they are more than worthy of the investment. But I feel like I”m stomping on the collection if I write (and get lost in) the collection and its comments.

    You’ve been creating headers out of quotes, and then collecting the index under it. My gut feeling (maybe) is that you could author posts and make copy them the first post under the header, preserving your work. But that would sacrifice the hits on your original post?

    Or maybe I”l man-the-f—k-up, and just get in there comment anyway. lolz

    Why did I write this? Hidden apology for not reciprocating your attention.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 18:40:00 UTC

  • “I would like to know if there has always been a difference in the way women and

    —“I would like to know if there has always been a difference in the way women and men have voted, or if the women’s lib movement in the 60’s marked the time when women moved to the left.”—Susan Bigs

    Short answer: Men and women have different biological functions, abilities, instincts, intuitions, and incentives. We always follow our incentives. We always organize to promote our group’s incentives. The family is a compromise where in we share the same interests. The market for cmmons in the state, and the market for goods and services outside of the state, allow those already in the family to compromise in a market of mutual exchange. And allow the classes of families to cooperate on means even if we share different ends.

    The primary difference is between married women with children allied with husbands (conservatively), and unmarried, single mothers, and increasingly university indoctrinated women and men to vote left.

    For the first generation, women voted conservatively. It changed after that. It changed radically when the jewish marxists failed to create class warfare due to the failure of marxism and the success of european markets under rule of law, and when those marxists in the frankfurt school switched from to cultural marxism to undermine our culture, then the jewish postmodernists switched to identity politics to undermining cooperation between us, and then when jewish feminists switched to undermining cooperation with the genders.

    Birth control began it. The control over women over family spending and 70% of all spending and the influence of marketing to women increased promotion of it. The decline in economic necessity of husbands decreased it. The increase in entry of more women into the workforce, partly because of it increased it, the decline in births because of it also, the decline of marriages because of it, the decline in the duration of marriages because of it, and the decline in the two income household driving down average household wages did it. The increase in college debt -especially for women who took ‘gut’ courses (and mostly still do), provided incentive to the academy who promoted it. And the rest is history. In other words, men and women share the same interests in a famly, and historically, a married man, represented his family, if he and his family held property (and if he fought in the military when needed), then his vote was in the compromise interests of the family.

    Our failure was in maintaining one house of parliament/commons instead of continuing the practice of adding houses for the classes. Had women had their own house, and had labor had it’s own house, then the ‘evils’ of majoritarianism would not have destroyed our country and our demographics as a side effect of female differences in voting by demanding more resources from the state, and devoted resources to the reproduction of the underclasses, instead of the production of commons from which we had so long enjoyed the returns.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 15:18:00 UTC

  • “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-em

    “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-empirical and the female emotional-faithful, just as marriage is a compromise between male and female – under which neither obtains their ideal, but both achieves the optimum possible.

    Otherwise we must go to war between the truthful and the faithful, and while the faithful can undermine, and resist, they poorly war, and this is not only because they are poorer, but because they are more feminine in composition and cognition.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 15:01:00 UTC

  • “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-em

    “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-empirical and the female emotional-faithful, just as marriage is a compromise between male and female – under which neither obtains their ideal, but both achieves the optimum possible.

    Otherwise we must go to war between the truthful and the faithful, and while the faithful can undermine, and resist, they poorly war, and this is not only because they are poorer, but because they are more feminine in composition and cognition.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 15:00:00 UTC

  • by Ryan Drummond I love the fact you say the same thing in so many different way

    by Ryan Drummond

    I love the fact you say the same thing in so many different ways.

    A. Shows you understand it PHENOMENALLY well (increases trust)

    B. Offers me a myriad of different ways of learning to express certain points.

    –“Nobody wants to carry a dictionary around with them”–Useful Idiot

    Well, neither do I, that’s why you study words in your spare time you nobhead

    I don’t know whether some people think we wake up one morning able to write books using complex prose.

    We actually have to put the work in, in our spare time lol.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-31 13:51:00 UTC