Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • NAMING NAMES -FULL EXPLANATION OF THE FEMALE AND ASHKENAZI METHOD OF WARFARE Une

    NAMING NAMES -FULL EXPLANATION OF THE FEMALE AND ASHKENAZI METHOD OF WARFARE
    youtu.be/SKjSvIQg05E?t=1883
    Unedited. Long discourse. But most of it’s there.
    If you want to understand what I’m trying to outlaw, here’s where I explain it.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-10 23:23:06 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107079806891249649

  • @Tayai Yep. 😉

    @Tayai Yep. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 22:49:16 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107074011529682266

  • @Tayai See? You don’t need remedial education. There just aren’t many people lik

    @Tayai See? You don’t need remedial education.
    There just aren’t many people like you who don’t need remedial education. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 22:43:02 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107073987038113466

  • I love all people who are intellectually honest and willing to pay the cost of t

    I love all people who are intellectually honest and willing to pay the cost of truth and reciprocity. I simply love my people more because we are most adapted to and most suited to it at scale. It’s not complicated. I’ve lived in ethnically homogeneous polities and there are zero circumstances where ethnically homogeneous polities do not produce superior commons, and superior quality of life, if they reduce the scale of the underclass, through meritocratic reproduction. Other peoples can’t do it unless their numbers are kept in the single digits of the population, and those single digits are limited to those capable of contributing to the professional class. Everyone else deprives the young and old of useful work in the contribution to the commons, which in turn leaves only hyperconsumption as a means of status and mindfulness.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 20:39:01 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107073499391151776

  • @Tayai We can always do a zoom and record it and I can explain it for others too

    @Tayai We can always do a zoom and record it and I can explain it for others too…

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 18:58:10 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107073102842177639

  • Boost of @Aetius @Seax_Guy @RadioFreeNorthwest If ye love wealth better than lib

    Boost of @Aetius@Seax_Guy@RadioFreeNorthwest If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 18:33:07 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107073056823666939

  • @Tayai It’s the middle class false promise of equality vs the marxist underclass

    @Tayai It’s the middle class false promise of equality vs the marxist underclass false promise of equality vs the pc-woke race and sex false promise of equality. In other words, if we trace the origin the the false promise it begins with the french revolution. Rousseau > Hegel > Marx > Gramsci > (frankfurt here) > (Pomos Here) > (Anti-whites here)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 18:24:08 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107072969037682701

  • More Against Critics of Sabine Hossenfelder

    —“Isn’t her work about superdeterminism?. The maths thing is just her daft opinion about why progress isn’t fast enough for her. Maybe she is just annoyed her theory isn’t taken more seriously.”—
    In physics (like all sciences) there are different disciplines. People who produce theories. People who design tests. People who produce data. People who work with data, people who synthesize data that’s been worked on. This is the division of labor in almost every field in or out of the sciences. It’s the same even in entrepreneurship.
    There is a human tendency to evade seeking to understand, seeking to produce alternative arguments, and seeking to deny their need to cognitively and behaviorally adapt by the use of ‘gossiping, shaming, ridiculing, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, undermining, canceling, and denial.’ (GSRRM for short). 
    You’re making an ad hominem attack on the individual, not on the argument. It means you can’t defeat the argument. If you can defeat the argument you might be able to explain the incentives that that person is following. But GSRRM so to speak is claiming you have knowledge and understanding that you do not demonstrably possess.
    In Sabine’s case she makes a very clear set of arguments (and she’s right) and this debate has existed in mathematics and physics since Hilbert. While most fields reformed SOME of science – requiring we limit claims to testimony that is in fact testifiable – the failure of mathematicians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to avoid foundations in set theory and instead in computation re-idealized mathematics.
    This has resulted on a conflict between what is testifiable in physics under the limitations of mathematics that is insufficient for the description of observables. And it has resulted in mathematical observables not physical observables. And this is all an extension of ‘just calculate’. Which is where ‘math and physics went wrong’.
    S0 the failure of our physics community over the past seventy years is largely due to the incorrect founding of mathematics in sets, producing a mathematics of analogies rather than existence, and a resulting physics of analogies rather than existence, and limited to testimony that causes the failure to transform the discipline back to realism, naturalism, materialism, and away from ‘infectin’ by idealism.
    You may or may not be able to understand that and I’m one of the top two or three people living that understand this problem – and all of us have a background in computer science and artificial intelligence (and me in economics and law), where it’s well known that mathematics has a limit and ‘we’re at it’.

  • More Against Critics of Sabine Hossenfelder

    —“Isn’t her work about superdeterminism?. The maths thing is just her daft opinion about why progress isn’t fast enough for her. Maybe she is just annoyed her theory isn’t taken more seriously.”—
    In physics (like all sciences) there are different disciplines. People who produce theories. People who design tests. People who produce data. People who work with data, people who synthesize data that’s been worked on. This is the division of labor in almost every field in or out of the sciences. It’s the same even in entrepreneurship.
    There is a human tendency to evade seeking to understand, seeking to produce alternative arguments, and seeking to deny their need to cognitively and behaviorally adapt by the use of ‘gossiping, shaming, ridiculing, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, undermining, canceling, and denial.’ (GSRRM for short). 
    You’re making an ad hominem attack on the individual, not on the argument. It means you can’t defeat the argument. If you can defeat the argument you might be able to explain the incentives that that person is following. But GSRRM so to speak is claiming you have knowledge and understanding that you do not demonstrably possess.
    In Sabine’s case she makes a very clear set of arguments (and she’s right) and this debate has existed in mathematics and physics since Hilbert. While most fields reformed SOME of science – requiring we limit claims to testimony that is in fact testifiable – the failure of mathematicians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to avoid foundations in set theory and instead in computation re-idealized mathematics.
    This has resulted on a conflict between what is testifiable in physics under the limitations of mathematics that is insufficient for the description of observables. And it has resulted in mathematical observables not physical observables. And this is all an extension of ‘just calculate’. Which is where ‘math and physics went wrong’.
    S0 the failure of our physics community over the past seventy years is largely due to the incorrect founding of mathematics in sets, producing a mathematics of analogies rather than existence, and a resulting physics of analogies rather than existence, and limited to testimony that causes the failure to transform the discipline back to realism, naturalism, materialism, and away from ‘infectin’ by idealism.
    You may or may not be able to understand that and I’m one of the top two or three people living that understand this problem – and all of us have a background in computer science and artificial intelligence (and me in economics and law), where it’s well known that mathematics has a limit and ‘we’re at it’.

  • @EmpiresFrontiers Let me help you a bit. In my businesses, which were consultanc

    @EmpiresFrontiers Let me help you a bit. In my businesses, which were consultancies, we (I) regularly fired customers, if they were practicing irreciprocity. Firing a customer tells them that they have no leverage. That you do not value them. That they are not worth your time. It tells them they are ‘unfit’. This turns out this is the most positive form of feedback you can provide. It reforms the customer permanently. And eventually, they will always return seeking to operate reciprocally. This is an extension of the reconciliation instinct in all social animals.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-08 10:33:02 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107065454232350790