Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • 2005’s War of The Worlds as Non-Aryan Myth

    By Eli Harman (Curt: “Ghetto Ethics, and Rat Heroism”) In the traditional hero’s journey of Aryan myth and legand, somebody relatable and unassuming faces great challenges and trials, sometimes setbacks and losses, before finally rising to the occasion and triumphing gloriously, and probably getting the girl. Then everyone lives happily ever after (until it’s time to do it again.) But the many possible variations on this simple theme are notably absent from most contemporary media. A good example of the this would be the 2005 version of “War of the Worlds.” There is no glorious triumph. It’s just run, hide, escape, run hide, escape; plus morally ambiguous connundra resolved by choosing self-preservation at all costs. Finally, the protagonists eventually survive just by outlasting the invaders, who are brought down by the filth, disease, and corruption, that Earthlings live amidst, rather than any heroics or agency on their part. It’s not the hero’s journey, so much as the rat’s, because it was not written or directed by Aryans…

  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am

  • Eli on Female Coercion

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return. These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”) That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women. At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman
    May 25, 2018 8:09am

  • —“How are society, culture and politics interrelated with each other?”—

    SOCIETY: People in a geography with shared interests because of shared dependence upon language, manners, norms, laws, and institutions. POLITICS: The institutional means by which we jockey for, negotiate upon, decide upon which commons are produced with the scarce resources of the polity (population) – usually in the form of taxes, but also trade, behavior, and legislation. CULTURE: Myths, Traditions, Rituals, Holidays, Foods, Arts. Technically: the group’s evolutionary strategy, and the costs we pay to demonstrate reciprocal fitness (agreeableness) for that strategy.
    May 25, 2018 10:07am

  • —“How are society, culture and politics interrelated with each other?”—

    SOCIETY: People in a geography with shared interests because of shared dependence upon language, manners, norms, laws, and institutions. POLITICS: The institutional means by which we jockey for, negotiate upon, decide upon which commons are produced with the scarce resources of the polity (population) – usually in the form of taxes, but also trade, behavior, and legislation. CULTURE: Myths, Traditions, Rituals, Holidays, Foods, Arts. Technically: the group’s evolutionary strategy, and the costs we pay to demonstrate reciprocal fitness (agreeableness) for that strategy.
    May 25, 2018 10:07am

  • No, Ad Hom in Prosecution Is Not a Double Standard.

    —“How can [we] complain about ridicule, but then habitually use terms like “white knight” and “shieldmaiden””— 1 – Reciprocity. Always (a) return the insult, (b) return to the central argument, (c) stay with the argument until the opponent is defeated or retreats. 2 – Prosecution vs Coercion: Ad hom used in prosecuting attempted theft by coercion – the moral, vs ad hom as means of coercion in perpetuation of a theft – the immoral. 3 – Usually (I run into this a lot) accusations of contradiction are only attempted frauds of false equality. Either one is trying to commit a theft or not. Ad hom for theft is simply true. Ad claiming equality when one is a prosecutor of attempted theft and another is an attempted thief, is just another attempted theft by fraud.
    May 25, 2018 10:18am

  • No, Ad Hom in Prosecution Is Not a Double Standard.

    —“How can [we] complain about ridicule, but then habitually use terms like “white knight” and “shieldmaiden””— 1 – Reciprocity. Always (a) return the insult, (b) return to the central argument, (c) stay with the argument until the opponent is defeated or retreats. 2 – Prosecution vs Coercion: Ad hom used in prosecuting attempted theft by coercion – the moral, vs ad hom as means of coercion in perpetuation of a theft – the immoral. 3 – Usually (I run into this a lot) accusations of contradiction are only attempted frauds of false equality. Either one is trying to commit a theft or not. Ad hom for theft is simply true. Ad claiming equality when one is a prosecutor of attempted theft and another is an attempted thief, is just another attempted theft by fraud.
    May 25, 2018 10:18am

  • The Problem with The Category ‘psychology’.

    I distinguish between freudianism, psychologism, therapy, incentives/biases/limits/logic, neurochemistry, and cognitive science. When a person says “psychology” I usually have to deduce which of those they’re referring to. In my understanding psychology is used to refer to each of those. However, the first two are pseudosciences, therapy/self/help is something else, and the rest are sciences. Usually I am criticizing the use of the first two or the conflation of the first two with others. May 25, 2018 5:03pm

  • The Problem with The Category ‘psychology’.

    I distinguish between freudianism, psychologism, therapy, incentives/biases/limits/logic, neurochemistry, and cognitive science. When a person says “psychology” I usually have to deduce which of those they’re referring to. In my understanding psychology is used to refer to each of those. However, the first two are pseudosciences, therapy/self/help is something else, and the rest are sciences. Usually I am criticizing the use of the first two or the conflation of the first two with others. May 25, 2018 5:03pm

  • Reverence

    I don’t revere anything because that would mean I lacked the reason to judge it without reliance on emotion for decidability. There is no difficulty (for me) between talking to a god (which I do daily) and understanding the composition of that god, for the simple reason that talking to a god works. Lots of us talking to gods works better. Just as fitness is a substitute for physical labor, talking to gods is a substitute for talking to our “headmen”, or “Grandparents”. I understand that very few of us lack that degree of agency. Which is why I’m trying to find a way to produce the same results without the semitic nonsense. Very few people can be entirely dependent upon reason. It’s possible that we can train the majority of the population to have a more rational kind of faith than the evil statist or evil supernatural kinds. The problem is finding a narrative that makes it tolerable without making a lot of people ‘disappear’ first.
    May 24, 2018 6:59am