Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • @WhitesAdvocate I don’t want to call you a stupid, ignorant, retard, but you’re

    @WhitesAdvocate I don’t want to call you a stupid, ignorant, retard, but you’re wrong.

    The definition of polygamy is: “the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.”

    Serial monogamy is just one spouse at a time. It’s the norm in human history. For good reason. People died a lot.

    I say smart things. Please don’t pollute this space by saying stupid things. We keep things neat and clean here.

    This is a safe space for smart people. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 02:34:28 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107222117159756259

  • FUTURE OF MARRIAGE AND MATING: Polygamy? Nope. I try to avoid naturalistic falla

    FUTURE OF MARRIAGE AND MATING: Polygamy? Nope.

    I try to avoid naturalistic fallacies. Mankind is hyper-adaptive and adapts to natural pressures like all other creatures. There are only three conditions under which women choose spinsterhood, single motherhood, and monogamy over polygamy, and we haven’t been able to have them choose the single motherhood option before and survive.

    Those three ‘odd’ conditions are created by an artificial scarcity of men, the presence of disease in men, or radical asymmetry of wealth. This applies to all pairing off animals.

    I don’t see a possibility of that wealth without the extraordinary risk of mass political retaliation. If abortion is still this difficult I don’t see polygamy being any less difficult.

    It is quite possible to form a limited liability company or a partnership and exchange a contract, and limited power of attorney and produce the largest polygamous set of relations possible that the community will tolerate without ostracization and boycott. That’s all a marriage is.

    Combine this with the predictability of nationalism in the coming decades, and economic duress in the coming decades, and the need to invent a post-agrarian, post-industrial economy and institutions and I’m not sure we can count on much other than people choosing the rational option. The immorality of the Edwardian age led to the counter-reaction in the victorian. The victorian ended with the empire. The American empire is ending.

    We should see ourselves mirror England on one hand or Russia on the other. There are many examples in history. My preference is to take control of the process and prepare for it, and manage it. But that will take a near-revolution in the USA on terms I’ve explained elsewhere.

    In other words, we can’t ‘predict’ much from where we’re standing. Worse, there is a tendency of conservatives to try to be cheap and cunning and outwit history, just as much as there is of radical leftists to try to be magical thinkers about human nature. So as I repeat often ‘beware the man in the mirror’.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-05 02:05:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107222001598106596

  • @DrRicardoDuchesne Tangent: Furniture as High Art: Demand for High Art: When the

    @DrRicardoDuchesne Tangent: Furniture as High Art: Demand for High Art: When the monarchies and the nobility existed they created a market for excellence. When the middle class ruled they created a market for commodity. When the underclass rules they created a market for degeneracy.

    Europe requires the monarchy and nobility for very simple reasons: the generation of a market for excellences rather than commodities or degeneracies is only one of them. It’s the luxury reason. The practical reason is that monarchs can ‘throw the bums out’, and put a new government in place that produces excellences in the commons rather than commoditeis and degeneracies in the commons. Because that’s all governments do: create commons. And without monarchies they will act as renters, and maximize consumption of the commons’. Material, institutional, traditional, normative, behavioral, informational, technological, scientific.

    The french didn’t herald change. The english and the prussians did. The restoration of european civilization. And they insured not only the napoleonic destructino of the holy roman empire, but the functino of nobility and monarchy as producing small competing political states producing excellences that led to germany as the greatest technicians scientists economists and rulers that we have known.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 19:05:38 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107220352273021873

  • @thattomguy Law: “Sex work, of any kind, is sufficient reason for discrimination

    @thattomguy Law: “Sex work, of any kind, is sufficient reason for discrimination in work, housing, credit, public speech, voting, office holding.”

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 18:27:55 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107220203957166513

  • @thattomguy I read Red Pill 101 just last week or maybe the week before and I wa

    @thattomguy I read Red Pill 101 just last week or maybe the week before and I was floored at how excellent it was, and how deserving of an editorial pass for consistency. I read “the Game” when it first came out. I read the rational male. But at the time I didn’t need these things, They seemed obvious to me. And also, I’mn ot in the demographic (youg) that affected so many men. If you’re a wealthy ceo with an international business driving a ferrari with multiple houses in your 40’s you have pretty much all you could want. The bigger problem is finding a decent woman not ‘getting’ her. I found a couple. Made the wrong choice oddly enough. So it wasn’t until I’d worked my way through my research and started working on the dating market that I understood the severity of the problem – and I’m still sort of floord that ‘slutting’ has reached such scales that it’s created an asymmetry in the mating market.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 18:11:25 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107220139069523869

  • THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY IN PRODUCING MINDFULNESS AND HAPPINESS No matter whe

    THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY IN PRODUCING MINDFULNESS AND HAPPINESS

    No matter where you sit on the religion question, you have to come to terms with the fact that christianity worked, and still works, and produces the happiest people and families, while marxism and identity-marxism(pomo-pc-woke) produces the opposite, and secular humanism rides in the middle.

    The open question is can we reform christianity as we had under the byzantines, under augustine, under aquinas, despite the failure of the vatican reforms?

    Yes, we can. Because whether god is existential, emergent, or metaphorical, and whether jesus is prophet, philosopher, or social scientist, the result is the same. All that differs is whether you’re unchristian enough to demand others ‘believe’ the way you do, instead of produce the same behavior regardless of beliefs.

    I am loyal to fundamentalist christians. I don’t ‘believe’ like they do. I don’t need faith. For me it’s just science, and the large variation in human cognition between intuiition, imagination and reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 18:01:34 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107220100367455173

  • TRANSLATING PARENTING RESEARCH INTO RULES OF THUMB (a) You can screw them up, or

    TRANSLATING PARENTING RESEARCH INTO RULES OF THUMB

    (a) You can screw them up, or slow them down, but you can’t improve them – it’s genetic. So ‘do as little harm as possible’. Everything else is class-virtue signaling. Including all the parenting books – just fads.

    (b) Who you reproduce with is more important than parenting.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 17:54:53 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107220074051893785

  • THE VERBOSITY OF THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE — “I agree with your assessment. But,

    THE VERBOSITY OF THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE

    — “I agree with your assessment. But, could you make it more concise? I just finished shaving when I started reading your post. By the time I finished it, I had a five o’clock shadow!” — elsewhere

    Sorry boss. I make my notes in YT comments as I listen to the video, then copy them to my archive and riff off them for a while.

    Unfortunately, there is a reason we speak in normative and moral prose: it’s cheap. There is also a reason we speak in logical, scientific, and economic prose – despite that it’s expensive.

    That cost is how we falsify normative and moral prose. “It’s the only way to be sure” so to speak.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 17:40:25 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107220017176329342

  • @EarthlingCarl artifact of copy-paste. (will fix)

    @EarthlingCarl artifact of copy-paste. (will fix)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 17:25:14 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107219957493486620

  • @thattomguy ( There is a difference in reasoning between solving the problem fro

    @thattomguy ( There is a difference in reasoning between solving the problem from the bottom up: Rollo/Red Pill, and solving the problem systemically from the top down (what I do). Hopefully between top down and bottom up we will put policy in place and skills in place, to overcome this problem. Because as you can see with the success of the left, men can’t win the bottom up game. It’s not possible if the institutions rig the game in favor of women.)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-11-04 17:24:35 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107219954918953694