Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS VS OF INTENT —“Maybe I’m unclear on what you me

    CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS VS OF INTENT

    —“Maybe I’m unclear on what you mean by intent. It seems to me incentives and intent are interlinked.”—Scott Strong

    CONSPIRACY OF COMMON INTERESTS: Passively follow incentives to seize existing opportunity – and fail to not seize opportunity that is immoral.

    CONSPIRACY OF INTENT: Actively work to create opportunities to seize because they are immoral.

    CONSPIRACY OF IDIOCY: Actively work to crate opportunities to seize that are immoral because you falsely believe that they are moral (you justify them)

    CONSPIRACY TO BAIT INTO HAZARD: Actively work to create opportunities for others to seize that produce immoral consequences.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 09:21:00 UTC

  • (little old lady humor) Me: (tauting) “Mom. Why are women so susceptible to magi

    (little old lady humor)

    Me: (tauting) “Mom. Why are women so susceptible to magical beliefs?”

    Her: “So we can believe there is hope for men.”

    Me: (rolling laughter) “It’s so that they have hope for their children and continue to care for them.”

    Her: “Well, that works for men too…”

    Me: “I saw that coming”

    Her: “uh huh….”

    The little old lady fan club.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 08:04:00 UTC

  • OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can des

    OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL

    He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. The men who can defend or destroy, always own and control things. The question is only whether they act to control things they own. This is why a universal militia is required to produce rule of law – the power to deny power. And this is why only western man has rule of law – individual sovereignty. And with the introduction of metal, the spear, then the sword, then the bow, then the rifle, the militia increasingly obtained power, to deny power. The purpose of the militia is to create the power to deny power, so that no one else has the power to control things or destroy things – leaving only sovereignty and reciprocity under the natural law as means of survival. Therefore the host of men must exercise control of things in order to prevent control of things, leaving only the natural law, and and the markets for reciprocity within them.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 07:50:00 UTC

  • DEFINE: CELLULAR DAMAGE —“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Dani

    DEFINE: CELLULAR DAMAGE

    —“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson

    XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 02:20:00 UTC

  • Notes… Jim “Biggest financial collapse since the fourteenth century… the dat

    Notes…

    Jim “Biggest financial collapse since the fourteenth century… the data lags… we won’t know until july … but it’s a depression” (I dunno)”We’ve been in a depression since ’07.” (Agreed) “Because keynes’ definition is a sustained period of below trend growth with no tendency to collapse or return to growth.” (agreed) “20-30% declines”…. no models are useful… we’ve never seen anything like it. It’s outside living memory … we’ve never recovered from the crash of 08. And now we’re in a huge crisis.”

    Pippa “the economy … a bit like humans getting covid … the disease isn’t what kills you it’s the immune system attacking itself. …. so biz will kill their biz before it kills the owner … there won’t be an average for anyone. everyone will be touched by it differently and personally. those that are in the massively more efficient economy may be in better shape, but those that are no longer needed will be (screwed). now that I work outside the office, I se it works, so why do we have all this overhead. but with less fat (overhead) to maintain the physical plant. It’s not enough to have a skill set. Policy makers were on the back foot and slow to respond and they’re doing the same with the economy. … they think you can put the economy in snooze mode. That’s not how it works ’cause of cash flow. If you don’t, then people and biz won’t make it – like 60% of people in industrialized countries depends on next month’s paycheck, and 30% depend on next week’s paycheck. …. second is throwing money at it … but the mechanism … was thru the tax office or bank loans. So there is no government mechanism. … how bad is it going to be increases rapidly with every two weeks that pass.

    UK: no mortgage, no rent, no tax, for three months. USA hasn’t done this, which is what they should have done.

    … The human psychology question is open…. what did people do with all that damage to the world economy? They said, I just wanna live, and we had the roaring twenties. And it’s possible that this next would be like it. But at that point 60% of people were in poverty, which gave rise to the 30’s….

    Actually, the politicians prolong the slowdown if the market can clear out the broken assets…. how quickly can we clear it..

    ( CD: that’s the right answer. The answer is to spend on re-domestication of industry and automation of it – and infrastructure and public works administration style commons production. )

    … etc…

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 20:28:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE ARE *VERY* DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER by John Mark It is hard for us to im

    PEOPLE ARE *VERY* DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER

    by John Mark

    It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us.

    This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person.

    Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies *increases* the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.)

    As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives.

    Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute *intent to be evil* onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly *being themselves* (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians).

    So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.”

    So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites.

    I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you *act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate*.

    I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you *act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate*.

    And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust.

    Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.)

    One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.

    * Many Christians say “If you’re not Christian you’re not good enough.” (While Christian pastors/priests refuse to say what is necessary to save the West. Why would we follow or submit to them? It’s ludicrous. Don’t worry, Christians don’t follow through on this threat – 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. They’ll always end up following the best leaders they can get which rarely come from their own ranks.)

    * The “alt-right” says “Talk about joos in every conversation/video, and tell everyone how Hitler was right, and provide me a sentimental religion around the wonderfulness of the white race, or you’re not good enough.”

    * Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”

    The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us.

    No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people.

    The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”.

    Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses.

    We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 19:47:00 UTC

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview: 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that E

    Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism.

    2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate?

    3) Eric’s Attempt at description

    Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model

    Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter.

    GR = Pride of place to gravity.

    SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons

    Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again.

    Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort.

    4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria).

    Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned.

    Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience.

    5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t.

    I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome.

    Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions.

    So, I understand administrative skepticism.

    Conversation ends.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 19:05:00 UTC

  • SHANNONG CONSTANTINE IN HER USUAL BRILLIANCE —“Christians want to be woo’ed…

    SHANNONG CONSTANTINE IN HER USUAL BRILLIANCE

    —“Christians want to be woo’ed…the congregation is referred to as female for a good reason. If you don’t woo them by speaking to them in the grammars they are accustomed to–supernaturalism, childlike storytelling (parables), and the language of blind faith–they get put off, and like uppity women, they will walk away in a huff. The problem is, they aren’t some great prize to be won, they’re like all other Western females, hopelessly misguided, morally compromised ding bats with delusions of grandeur.”—Shannon Constantine

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 17:33:00 UTC

  • THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE WILL RETURN TO HISTORICAL NORM – AND THAT’S NOT MONOGAMY

    THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE WILL RETURN TO HISTORICAL NORM – AND THAT’S NOT MONOGAMY

    During most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources.

    Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom.

    In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost.

    Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children.

    Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree.

    We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men.

    Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women.

    Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood.

    Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial.

    Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity.

    But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly.

    It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense.

    ===

    (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 16:45:00 UTC

  • DEFINE POWER DISTANCE (definitions) —“Would someone please robustly define pow

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distanceQ: DEFINE POWER DISTANCE

    (definitions)

    —“Would someone please robustly define power distance?”— Micky Callahan

    Power distance refers to the relationship between those in power and the subordinates in a society where lower ranking individuals depending on the high or low power distance culture react to that authority.

    Simple checklist (Doolittle):

    1 – How many layers are between you and political decision makers.

    2 – How many people are competing for their attention?

    3 – How contradictory are the competitors demands to yours?

    4 – How how likely are political decision makers to reflect anyone’s interest other than their own?

    Links via @[1497330546:2048:Paul Bard]

    1. Power Distance

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

    2. Power distance Index

    http://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index

    3. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede’s_cultural_dimensions_theory?Updated Apr 15, 2020, 4:24 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 16:24:00 UTC