Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Correct. As we developed in and migrated out of africa, we were able to isolate

    Correct.
    As we developed in and migrated out of africa, we were able to isolate in the four regions of the continents and speciate into four primary races which largely consisted of increases in neoteny and decreases in aggression, combined with increasing utility of IQ which roughly equals rate of adaptation, which produced group differences that shrunk the lower classes and increased the average IQ of the group. Cold weather and farming that requires living in close proximity and long-term planning are brutal on lower IQs. So there is some absolute benefit to neotenic differences in the races, and some absolute benefit of reduction of underclasses with lower self-regulation and higher aggression. This pair of evolutionary processes created race differences in IQ. And hybrid subraces accurately reflect the admixture of the four primary races and their four speciation events.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-04 17:15:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632067254274732032

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632040276775817216

  • @RaiderActual Yep

    @RaiderActual Yep.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-13 02:24:12 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/109855051093044568

  • @byteghost It’s useful in that it give people like me documentation, just like S

    @byteghost It’s useful in that it give people like me documentation, just like Solzhenitzyn does.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-06 18:44:30 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/109819269615987527

  • @byteghost (Sorry. Misinterpreted your comment.)

    @byteghost (Sorry. Misinterpreted your comment.)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-02-06 18:37:19 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/109819241384033027

  • So you would have to defeat my argument that decidabiity that would limit extern

    So you would have to defeat my argument that decidabiity that would limit externalities is available to us, even in sport where outcomes are substantive at least in monetary reward if not status and externalities – at the cost of better rules and judges ‘refs’.

  • The USA uses the same strategy with all ‘backward’ nations until they integrate

    The USA uses the same strategy with all ‘backward’ nations until they integrate with the world system of trade as responsible parties: (a) contain (b) wait. Why? Economies, communications, and consumerism win over time.

  • Sex differences in antisocial behavior. Sex differences in neuroticism. Compensa

    Sex differences in antisocial behavior. Sex differences in neuroticism. Compensating for Sex differences in innovation: material vs social. Due to sex differences in prediction. Due to sex differences in hemispheric dominance: predator(pack) vs prey(herd) means of organization.

  • @Xistance I don’t see the value in knowing. If I (we) just came out and said tha

    @Xistance I don’t see the value in knowing. If I (we) just came out and said that it’s what I (we) believed, the hard right would believe it because it fits their narrative. Unfortunately I’m not the kind of person who does such things, because first, I woldn’t want to be caught in a lie, and second because it’s a violation of my ethics and morals.

    So, Instead, I’d say the truth: john and I (and our entire team) were (a) deeply concerned that trump would lose the election and the right would be incrementally silenced (as I predicted correctly), (b) foolishly optimistic that we could convert the ‘mad boys’ of the right out of violence and into protest-with-specific-demands, (c) and to show how it was done without taking the bait of the left, (d) and that we could demonstrate it with a soft launch with a few hundred of our followers. (e) We thought we’d had a victory by showing how it was done. But the nazis, white supremacists, and the groypers, all undermined us instead. We had no negative reviews from the major media. And that demonstrated our strategy was right. But we were undermined by the right.

    We did not even imagine, in our wildest dreams that the right would turn on us. That they would not understand my playing with the BLM guys, that they ould take my sweat as urine, or that they would interpret the wisdom of not taking the left’s taunts and baiting, when the BLM group had alraedy paid off the host in cash right in front of me, and caused the police to bring up the armored vehicles in preparation for a clash.

    I could have easily told the guys to start either fighting or shooting. They would have. But they did as directed, which was to hug them as ‘fellow rebels against a tyrannical state’.

    So I have one failing. I can’t understand the simplicity of the mob. It’s how I fail every single time. And it’s why I’m suitable for intellectual production, governing, and judging but not for activism.

    And so john and i agreed to abandon the right. We believed, and I still do, that the majority middle will become exhausted by the left’s abuse, and that the they are the only viable market for solutions. And when the mad boys are needed, they’ll opportunistically follow that middle as ‘troublemakers’.

    But the right cannot produce leadership – for the reasons I’ve stated over and over again in great detail: they will undermine any adult who isn’t promising rage.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-12-12 14:40:46 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/109501221834387082

  • @Xistance I hate to say this but I have no way of arguing with you, and it’s ent

    @Xistance I hate to say this but I have no way of arguing with you, and it’s entirely possible that you’re right. It’s certainly an explanation that many on the right would accept. And it would certainly absolve me of some blame. But in all things I try to take responsibility for my actions. And I say instead that I was so desperate for political victory that I let my optimism override my skepticism, and took a risk I shouldn’t have, to reach outside of my intellectual work, into activism – something for which I”m entirely unsuited, and only did out of a feeling I had to protect my people. So you could be right. And in some ways I think you might be. And in others I hope you are. I don’t mind being fooled as much as being undermined – because it hurt my ability to help my people.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-12-11 14:55:42 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/109495618239825310

  • Boost of @DrRicardoDuchesne Diversity and rainbow flags are deeply rooted in the

    Boost of @DrRicardoDuchesne

    Diversity and rainbow flags are deeply rooted in the inherently progressivist foundational principles of the United States. That’s a major reason why it is so difficult for conservatives to mount an effective ideological challenge against wokeness. This can be shown in numerous ways. Here’s one way: go back to George Bancroft (1800-1891), the most influential American historian of the 19C. By the standards of today, this man would be considered a fascist for his acceptance of the basic moral norms of his day about marriage, Christianity, and for his view that America was an “Anglo-Saxon” nation. But if you examine his 10-volume History of the United States, it expresses the ideals that eventually culminated in the woke politics of today with its Neocon policies of spreading democratic rights to the world.

    Bancroft says that America was created “for the advancement of the principles of everlasting peace and universal brotherhood.” With the spread of American values, the “ages of servitude” and “inequality” would end. The prime longing of all humans is liberty. While this love of liberty was Anglo-Saxon in origins, it had become in America the “breath of life to the people”. Americans “heard the glad tidings [of liberty] which promised the political regeneration of the world”. The Declaration of Independence was the “announcement of the birth of a people” dedicated to the spread of liberty to the world. Slavery, Bancroft correctly saw, was an institution that had originated outside the American ideal of liberty, and that’s why it was eventually abolished.

    The “new progressive historians” of the early 20C who “rejected” Bancroft’s liberal conception for a “social” or “economic” historical approach focused on the role of the masses, workers, new immigrants, and women, were merely pointing out the persistent impediments to the actualization of the ideal of liberty, driven by a longing for a more democratic society, by advocating reforms to lift out the masses that had not benefitted from the limited liberties of the past due to lack of public education and exploitative working conditions. Bancroft was himself an advocate of public schools.

    But who were the historians of “the education of mankind” before Bancroft who influenced him?

    Source date (UTC): 2022-11-28 21:45:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/109424109629507359