Theme: Agency

  • Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female) A: “Well you know, it’s jus

    Q: “Curt, why are you trying to rile me up” (Female)

    A: “Well you know, it’s just a ruse to get you to think, right?” (Me)

    The point is that marriage is destructive to men as it is currently constructed and enforced by the state – resulting in suicide and poverty for older males at increasing rates.

    So the reason I say something inflammatory is to draw attention to this fact, and demonstrate that the contract is unequal, and as such should be eliminated. In other words, I think we must end common property for all property worth fighting over.

    And I operate under the assumption, demonstrated by evidence, that marriages are temporary exchanges of powers of attorney, but never of property. That children belong to their mothers and never to their fathers, unless the court deems mothers dangerous to the child (in which case it’s rare the father is any better.(

    So if we are no longer to be married for life then we are not longer able to rationally possess common property – and upon failure or bankruptcy of the partnership (not corporation) that we call “the family”, all partners depart with their proportional contributions.

    In practice this means that title to any item must be provided, and no unstated title may remain unprovided for.

    Now, I should note that I can see a post-familial society but I must work on that a bit before I’m confident that it isn’t comparatively uncompetitive. Because as far as I can tell, high time parenting isn’t replaceable.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 15:36:00 UTC

  • Warrior, Judge, Chevalier (caretaker), Artisan. Thats enough to master for any m

    Warrior, Judge, Chevalier (caretaker), Artisan. Thats enough to master for any man.

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if you went to university, to expressly develop each of these skills?

    We used to do that you know.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:47:00 UTC

  • ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED You know, I lucked

    ON THE METHODS OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM COMBINED

    You know, I lucked out sort of. I solved a set of very complicated problems. I solved those problems only because my cognitive bias favored solution of them. As a mild aspie I cannot stand disorder, and raised in high conflict household I cannot stand conflict. There are always compromises (exchanges) to be made. It is these exchanges, when they are not obstructions or rent, that eliminate conflict. We must always understand that we cannot have perfection, only what we can have without costing the interests of others.

    I remember telling something like this to Walter Block many years ago “Sometimes I think I am just a child observing a machine inside me that god created for the sole purpose of solving a problem I am not even sure I can name or describe.”

    I look back at my work now, and I understand the import of it in the context of human history, and I understand how powerful an argument it is against the catastrophe let loose by the combination of the enlightenment, and the rapid expansion of scientific knowledge that we rationalize but is still, for us, very close to magic, and our reason cannot quite compensate for it yet.

    BACK TO CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND STOICISM

    A man will build character if he focuses on his works. He plans his day. He performs his day. He analyzes his success and failure for that day. And he repeats this process perpetually, without regard for confusing, competing nonsense that pervades human society – all of which is little more than an attempt to rally support for the purpose of persuading one group to prey upon another, or compete with another. All of which works by rallying framing and guilt. When in fact, if all of us merely focus on what it is that is in front of us, we would organize as we need to without attempts to circumvent those efforts with mere verbal deceptions and promises.

    WORKING IN THE COAL MINDS OF PHILOSOPHY

    I approach work very simply. I want to provide a language for conservatives, so that they can argue their ancient group evolutionary strategy in rational terms. I want to give them an argumentative means of resisting the tragedies that have been visited upon our people by all three of the enlightenment cultures – even though I consider the german of little more than a distraction, anglo universalism as a mere error, and cosmopolitan pseudoscience, obscurantism, overloading, lying, parasitism a second act of genocide against the western people as damaging as christianity: it takes advantage of our strength: trust and altruism – because we have extend the in-group kinship ethic to all – and turns it into a liability, by preserving the altruism but destroying the structure of our myths and language that require us tot ell the truth.

    Altruism is not a mindless general rule to be obeyed as an act of faith – it is a craft to be mastered and put to wise use – it is a local activity, limited to personal experience, that must be personally judged, and can never be centralized in the state, or church. It must always be limited to the individual and his voluntary decisions. The only thing that we can centralize is war, and the only certainty we can depend upon is truth-telling and a jury’s judgement of that truth, and the ruthless punishment of liars, obscurers and deceivers, and the careful cautious demand for restitution from those who merely err.

    So the cosmopolitan attack on the west – on made entirely out of unconscious perpetuation of pre-modern evolutionary strategy – is a specifically crafted, genocidal attack on western commons as a means of preserving ‘separateness’ which by its nature, without exception, is a violation of the very principle that drives western altruism – togetherness: the extension of in-group trust to all members of the polity and the demand for universal integration in extension for that trust.

    There is no such thing possible as liberty or freedom that is compatible with a state of separatism, because liberty requires equal contribution to the commons even if we do not provide equal contribution to production.

    We are either able to construct a uniform and unified, homogenous, and high trust polity, without exception or we must construct walls between us to prevent precisely this form of degenerate attack – this second genocide against the west. Either we are kin or we are not. If we are not kin, then we are competitors, for whom cooperation is merely a more productive means of conducting war.

    CRITICAL RATIONALSM

    I just work as a scientist does: I sort of stumble onto a theory, and the try to construct arguments. If I cannot construct an argument (a propertarian, operational argument – which would equate to a praxeological argument that also corresponds to the evidence) then I have to abandon it. Once I can construct an argument of any kind, then I must try to break it. If it survives breaking, then try to find its limits.

    The secret in this technique is to assume you know nothing, and just prosecute the idea endlessly. If it survives all that then it is a candidate.

    If it is a candidate and it seems not to conflict with all other candidates in the same degree of contextual precision, then it seems to survive every test I can put it to.

    This does not make the same assumptions as do critical rationalists (as I understand them) in that they do not require operational construction or testimonial truth and they think that platonic abstract truth matters rather than that we construct many puzzle pieces that fit together as a set of (sort of) interlocking gears or wrenches or levers, and put them to use to solve real world problems, rather than we even pay any attention to the fact that this particular set of pieces is the most parsimonious possible.

    Because economically that is nonsensical -and possibly one of the reasons why jewish civilization, despite its early literacy, accomplished nothing despite it’s centuries of advantage, while, every time westerners managed to circumvent levantine authoritarian verbalism and mysticism, within a few hundred years we developed science and reason, and technological revolutions.

    They had their own problems. I don’t criticize people for survival, I criticize our people for our stupidity – our humility. It’s unwarranted. It lets parasites claim that hey have high status. And it has led to our genocidal failure in this century.

    MORE

    More later since my headache is just getting out of hand… lol


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 10:43:00 UTC

  • THE PARABLE OF THE BULLS The Old Bull and the Young Bull are standing on the hil

    THE PARABLE OF THE BULLS

    The Old Bull and the Young Bull are standing on the hill top, high above the herd of cows. The Old Bull slowly schools the Young Bull into his role, responsibilities and rights.

    Old Bull: “And our job is to reproduce and keep the herd healthy.”

    Young Bull: “How exactly does that work?”

    Old Bull: “Well, you can go down there, to the herd, and screw _any_ cow you want, at any time. That’s what I’m talking about.”

    The Young Bull who is visibly excited, can’t contain himself any longer and bursts out, “Well, let’s go run down there and screw a couple cows right now!”

    The Old Bull shakes his grizzled head and turns slowly to the Young Bull.

    In his deepest, calmest voice, he says, “How about we WALK down there instead. And then screw them ALL”.

    ———

    James Santagata ‘s advice on patience, planning, conservation of energy, and conquering your market completely.

    Priceless.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 04:43:00 UTC

  • I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the

    I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the point of my arguments – and taunts- is to teach us to understand one another’s motives, so that we can be happier and happier together.

    My message is a simple one: men are contained by the family from perusing their best interests. The marriage is a compromise. And in a government over families, we all have the same interests due to that compromise.

    So under one family one vote, the competition between the genders was conducted outside of the state, and the state served the majority interest: the family.

    But upon achieving enfranchisement women sought increasingly to implement socialism, then to destroy the family, then arguably to dominate men through the female dominance of the electorate.

    But this assumes men will continue demonstrating the behaviour outside the marriage that they demonstrated inside the marriage.

    And this cannot and will not happen.

    Instead the self interest of makes that we se expressed in the rest of the world will be the only logical approach for men to take.

    All revolutions are created by a minority of angry men.

    The western Man will only act to ham in his interest with moral authority.

    And western man is beginning to understand that he has moral authority.

    The pendulum has swung as far as it can.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 14:00:00 UTC

  • WHY? You approval can be mere lie. Your consent can be withdrawn. Your submissio

    WHY?

    You approval can be mere lie.

    Your consent can be withdrawn.

    Your submission can be escaped.

    But your defeat cannot be unmade.

    It is forever visible for all to see.

    We don’t, I don’t, seek your approval,

    your consent, or your submission.

    We seek, I seek, your defeat.

    And we will, I will, once committed,

    never stop, ever, until you are defeated completely.

    And the truth alone is sufficient weapon to defeat you.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 13:25:00 UTC

  • You know I had a terrible temper when I was very young and I really hated it. An

    You know I had a terrible temper when I was very young and I really hated it. And it works if you hate it long enough and hard enough. You have to hate hit more than anything that would give it rise. By the time I was in high school I would laugh instead, and try to make fun of whatever else was going on.

    Now and then though. I really wish I had that terrible temper. 🙂

    I just don’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 12:20:00 UTC

  • NUMBER ONE MATING CRITERIA IN THE WORLD, ACROSS BOTH GENDERS? “Is this person ni

    NUMBER ONE MATING CRITERIA IN THE WORLD, ACROSS BOTH GENDERS?

    “Is this person nice to me?”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:24:00 UTC

  • (diary) Exasperation: We will finish the Alpha for use by small interested parti

    (diary)

    Exasperation: We will finish the Alpha for use by small interested parties by the first of the year. And this changes my world a bit. I can live anywhere. I just need to visit my staff now and then, and I very much want to keep the business in Ukraine, because of all Ukraine has done for me. I love L’viv, because Roman is there, and he is my editor, advisor and coach, and I will forever be grateful for all he has done for me in every aspect of my life, – more than I can ever repay. I also have enough friends in Tallinn to be constantly happy and the widespread use of english would be easier on me. In the greater London area I could have access to other philosophers who help me through constant criticism – although I feel more at home with the quiet in Ukraine, so maybe one of the secondary cities would be better (although not my family’s ancestral towns in the midlands.) I have many friends in New York, but the intellectual movement is not in the states any longer, its in Europe, and NYC is so LOUD and so depressing for a white protestant male that I prefer London. Seattle is NOT an intellectual community, but an engineering center – but I have many friends there, and my business partner Max is there, and I have access to VC’s there, and I will spend the spring on capital, branding, and marketing, because the product is at the point where the remaining features have no material UI dependence (my contribution). My family is in new England so if I lived in Connecticut or Boston, I could be with them more often, despite the fact that face-to-face confrontation with the daily progress of the death of New England might be too much to bear. The Russians have killed the economy in Kiev for the time being, and their incremental plan to reconquer Ukraine proceeds.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 06:54:00 UTC

  • MOST HELPFUL EXPLANATION I’VE EVER PROVIDED FOR STRONG WOMEN? —“This is quite

    MOST HELPFUL EXPLANATION I’VE EVER PROVIDED FOR STRONG WOMEN?

    —“This is quite possibly the most helpful thing you have ever posted (at least for me).”—

    Women fear and reject us (men) all the time, for a zillion reasons every day. And we don’t like it really. Especially crazy chicks (the vast majority of women) when we are just trying to be friendly or get along, or learn, or whatever.

    One of the things that makes us feel emotionally and intellectually and socially safe is to be around women who aren’t ‘fragile’. Strong men like women who are strong.

    **Being a man around women is a little like being a gorilla in a glass-shop: everything is really easily broken if we aren’t really careful at all times.**

    Strong women make you feel ‘safe’ that you can talk and act like your natural gorilla-self without fear that the glasses will break (the crazy chicks will get over excited). And the crazy chicks will rally and shame other women and god forbid, other gorillas to punish you, for accidentally breaking a goblet, just cause, after all, you’re just a gorilla.

    I mean, that’s the reality of it. It’s that simple. That’s why strong men like strong women.

    Women often wish men thought more like them and men wish women thought more like them. We all wish others would think more like us. I mean, everything is easier the more similar that we are.

    But men are faster, stronger, and extremely dangerous super-predators. and when we get strong women around us we feel safer. Weak men want less strong women. Because if we don’t feel STRONGER then we don’t believe women will be attracted to us. (And they aren’t).

    So it’s a totally logical thing we’re talking abut here. Men want strong women that they wont break, and get in trouble for breaking (or lose opportunity for sex by breaking). And on the other hand, men don’t want women that are so strong that they won’t be attracted to us. The thing that works against mankind, is that women are so attracted to gorillas at the expense of everything else (no matter what they say, that’s the data), that women force regression toward the mean, because impulsive aggressive alphas aren’t as useful as un-impulsive, cunning alphas. So without monogamy, assortative mating, and property rights, women will cause dysgenic reproduction. And without assortative mating you get the middle east: invariant dysgenia holding at the mean.

    So that’s the truthful narrative, not the fallacy that’s cast by feminists.

    —“I also think men do have that whole scaling Everest thing. So something not easily obtained is worth working toward.”—

    Let me reframe this a bit: Men are scared. We are disposable and we know it. We are constantly threatened by permanent loneliness that can easily drive us to suicide. We mature later, and die earlier. In exchange we are stronger and faster, less sensitive and more specialized. We are, each of us, an experiment that can succeed or fail.

    About a third of us are undesirable as providers or gene suppliers, and about another third only marginally desirable as providers, not gene suppliers. Men try climb everest in order to capture the best genes that they can. It’s not complicated.

    And, worse, just as women must lie to themselves to control their paranoid impulses for acceptance in the tribe, lest not be able to seek rents when needed against fellow tribe members, men must lie to themselves so that they continue to work in the service of their genes despite the near total likelihood of failure.

    Men look in the mirror and see much better visions of themselves than others do, and women look and see worse than they do – the mirror always lies. And it must, or we would never keep the relentless pursuit of the interests our genes. Because what is rational in real time, is inconsequential to the intergenerational requirements of genes.

    This is why women can collect so many men to help them with so may different aspects of life without actually giving them sex, but merely the most remotest of chances that sex and affection are possible. Because men must play ever option available to them. And the lower on the curve they are, the more important are those options. And the more desperate the man the more aggressive he can become in pursuit of them – his genes drive him to reproduce, and his reason is a mere mouse riding an elephant of intuition, that does everything possible to lie to the mouse in order to get what it wants.

    I think of the elephant of intuition as blind, deaf and dumb and reliant on the mouse of reason. Intuition wants satisfaction for all intents and purposes must feed upon chemical satisfaction, and it only gets chemical satisfaction from rewarding the unconscious genes. The rider is a device for getting satisfaction. Everything is a compromise between the blind deaf and dumb elephant that has no problem lying to the rider, and the rider has eyes and ears and can speak and control the body, but little else.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 06:12:00 UTC