Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses.

    —“But I think you miss the mark somewhat here because heroism is fundamentally not about the material or Darwinian advantages.”—

    Heroism is a means of paying status and opportunity rather than material rewards, in exchange for directing dominance display to the production of commons. those commons may be physical, may be opportunities, may be, normative, may be informational or anything in between. So your mistake is failing to grasp that the use of ‘materialism’ as a criticism is an attempt to lie. instead, we seek gains whether material, opportunistic, or informational, and to prevent losses of the same. Because in all things we are simply an extension of the physical laws of the universe, with nothing other than the use of memory to choose optimum opportunities, rather than fae the limits of the physical world in seizing the first opportunity. it is by this vast accumulation of differences using different forms of memory that we capture and resist entropy while the reset of the universe decays. If I can get this thru: if you cannot convert an emotion to its underlying economic terms, then you are still talking superstition. It’s pseudoscientific superstition. But it’s superstition. In this example you are still thinking feelings have value, instead of that we evolved to experience positive and negative feelings for having increasing or decreasing assets, in physical (premium), opportunistic(discount), or informational (discount) form.

  • Testimony

    Testimony https://t.co/Luceop70YH

  • Testimony

    by Ryan Drummond I love the fact you say the same thing in so many different ways. A. Shows you understand it PHENOMENALLY well (increases trust) B. Offers me a myriad of different ways of learning to express certain points. –“Nobody wants to carry a dictionary around with them”–Useful Idiot Well, neither do I, that’s why you study words in your spare time you nobhead I don’t know whether some people think we wake up one morning able to write books using complex prose. We actually have to put the work in, in our spare time lol.

  • Testimony

    by Ryan Drummond I love the fact you say the same thing in so many different ways. A. Shows you understand it PHENOMENALLY well (increases trust) B. Offers me a myriad of different ways of learning to express certain points. –“Nobody wants to carry a dictionary around with them”–Useful Idiot Well, neither do I, that’s why you study words in your spare time you nobhead I don’t know whether some people think we wake up one morning able to write books using complex prose. We actually have to put the work in, in our spare time lol.

  • “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar”

    “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” https://t.co/cOVNShsszk

  • “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar”

    “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-empirical and the female emotional-faithful, just as marriage is a compromise between male and female – under which neither obtains their ideal, but both achieves the optimum possible. Otherwise we must go to war between the truthful and the faithful, and while the faithful can undermine, and resist, they poorly war, and this is not only because they are poorer, but because they are more feminine in composition and cognition.

  • “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar”

    “Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-empirical and the female emotional-faithful, just as marriage is a compromise between male and female – under which neither obtains their ideal, but both achieves the optimum possible. Otherwise we must go to war between the truthful and the faithful, and while the faithful can undermine, and resist, they poorly war, and this is not only because they are poorer, but because they are more feminine in composition and cognition.

  • A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted

    A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted, https://t.co/W8BzQkfvck

  • A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted,

    —“I would like to know if there has always been a difference in the way women and men have voted, or if the women’s lib movement in the 60’s marked the time when women moved to the left.”—Susan Bigs

    Short answer: Men and women have different biological functions, abilities, instincts, intuitions, and incentives. We always follow our incentives. We always organize to promote our group’s incentives. The family is a compromise where in we share the same interests. The market for cmmons in the state, and the market for goods and services outside of the state, allow those already in the family to compromise in a market of mutual exchange. And allow the classes of families to cooperate on means even if we share different ends. The primary difference is between married women with children allied with husbands (conservatively), and unmarried, single mothers, and increasingly university indoctrinated women and men to vote left. For the first generation, women voted conservatively. It changed after that. It changed radically when the jewish marxists failed to create class warfare due to the failure of marxism and the success of european markets under rule of law, and when those marxists in the frankfurt school switched from to cultural marxism to undermine our culture, then the jewish postmodernists switched to identity politics to undermining cooperation between us, and then when jewish feminists switched to undermining cooperation with the genders. Birth control began it. The control over women over family spending and 70% of all spending and the influence of marketing to women increased promotion of it. The decline in economic necessity of husbands decreased it. The increase in entry of more women into the workforce, partly because of it increased it, the decline in births because of it also, the decline of marriages because of it, the decline in the duration of marriages because of it, and the decline in the two income household driving down average household wages did it. The increase in college debt -especially for women who took ‘gut’ courses (and mostly still do), provided incentive to the academy who promoted it. And the rest is history. In other words, men and women share the same interests in a famly, and historically, a married man, represented his family, if he and his family held property (and if he fought in the military when needed), then his vote was in the compromise interests of the family. Our failure was in maintaining one house of parliament/commons instead of continuing the practice of adding houses for the classes. Had women had their own house, and had labor had it’s own house, then the ‘evils’ of majoritarianism would not have destroyed our country and our demographics as a side effect of female differences in voting by demanding more resources from the state, and devoted resources to the reproduction of the underclasses, instead of the production of commons from which we had so long enjoyed the returns.

  • A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted,

    —“I would like to know if there has always been a difference in the way women and men have voted, or if the women’s lib movement in the 60’s marked the time when women moved to the left.”—Susan Bigs

    Short answer: Men and women have different biological functions, abilities, instincts, intuitions, and incentives. We always follow our incentives. We always organize to promote our group’s incentives. The family is a compromise where in we share the same interests. The market for cmmons in the state, and the market for goods and services outside of the state, allow those already in the family to compromise in a market of mutual exchange. And allow the classes of families to cooperate on means even if we share different ends. The primary difference is between married women with children allied with husbands (conservatively), and unmarried, single mothers, and increasingly university indoctrinated women and men to vote left. For the first generation, women voted conservatively. It changed after that. It changed radically when the jewish marxists failed to create class warfare due to the failure of marxism and the success of european markets under rule of law, and when those marxists in the frankfurt school switched from to cultural marxism to undermine our culture, then the jewish postmodernists switched to identity politics to undermining cooperation between us, and then when jewish feminists switched to undermining cooperation with the genders. Birth control began it. The control over women over family spending and 70% of all spending and the influence of marketing to women increased promotion of it. The decline in economic necessity of husbands decreased it. The increase in entry of more women into the workforce, partly because of it increased it, the decline in births because of it also, the decline of marriages because of it, the decline in the duration of marriages because of it, and the decline in the two income household driving down average household wages did it. The increase in college debt -especially for women who took ‘gut’ courses (and mostly still do), provided incentive to the academy who promoted it. And the rest is history. In other words, men and women share the same interests in a famly, and historically, a married man, represented his family, if he and his family held property (and if he fought in the military when needed), then his vote was in the compromise interests of the family. Our failure was in maintaining one house of parliament/commons instead of continuing the practice of adding houses for the classes. Had women had their own house, and had labor had it’s own house, then the ‘evils’ of majoritarianism would not have destroyed our country and our demographics as a side effect of female differences in voting by demanding more resources from the state, and devoted resources to the reproduction of the underclasses, instead of the production of commons from which we had so long enjoyed the returns.