Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS You know when you’ve been out of college a while and

    UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS

    You know when you’ve been out of college a while and you realize you need to upgrade friends? I mean, they got you to this point, and maybe there is a keeper in there, but you really need to upgrade to people who more share your career, family, or lifestyle?

    Businesses go through a similar cycle, of selling to whomever they can get, to those who others don’t serve well, to those that are mainstream, to depending on their best customers, and if possible they shoot for ferrari-gucci territory of specializing in the pure signal market.

    Movements go through very similar evolutions. You start with the fringe because they’re the extreme novelty seekers. The fringe spreads your message to those seeking to augment their own novelties. Those spread to those seeking ideas. To those that are searching for solutions. To those that want a solution to rally around.

    What we fail to mention is that we must rid ourselves of people who might be a drag on the next market. And this is sometimes painful. Some people cannot follow. Some have followed enough. Some can follow, some drive, and some lead it. And if you are lucky you develop a group that leads it in different directions (I think that’s us) rather than tries to maintain control of it (as did NRx).

    Furthermore, there are people you must very clearly disassociate yourself, your business, or your movement from, because their desires for attention, influence, and control ( or to divide, or undermine ) your ability to gain the next more advantageous market.

    Most of you know how I work – very ‘thoroughly’ – by immersing myself in a subject, tearing it apart, and rebuilding what I can from the few grains of truth I found. I then use established groups as test subjects and attack those ideas – because the very passionate defend them intensely. If you are of a certain mind this can be fascinating to watch. If you are of other minds, this can be upsetting. But it is science at its best: exhaustive reduction to operational language.

    Over the past few days I’ve been working at making some very clear distinctions, and creating some distances. I have very clear reasons for doing this.

    I’ve never considered myself ‘alt right’ because it is synonymous with the use of critique (disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, trolling, propagandizing) and utterly devoid of innovative solutions to the problems we face. Hence why I used ‘New Right’ until others coopted it.

    We have seen the main body of the previous alt right crash and burn since Charlottesville. We have seen the intellectual resistance ‘right’ (or rather then right classical liberals) take over the discourse. But they are just creating a thin veil of resistance against the onslaught of the Cathedral Complex.

    The question I want to answer, is where from here?

    For myself, I want to increase the number and quality people increasingly ‘the ordinary right’. Why?

    There is nothing unpalatable about my work – it’s an innovation on classical liberalism. I don’t hate on anyone. Every group can transcend. If we only end cosmopolitanism and take responsibility for doing it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 17:55:00 UTC

  • WE ARE THE GODS —“Alexander looked out upon the breadth of his domain and wept

    WE ARE THE GODS

    —“Alexander looked out upon the breadth of his domain and wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.”–

    I look out upon the universe and say “We few are the gods who shall conquer it, bend it to our will, and make a paradise of it.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 12:01:00 UTC

  • AN EXCUSE TO REPEAT: Love women. Do not debate women. Never debate women over pr

    AN EXCUSE TO REPEAT:

    Love women. Do not debate women.

    Never debate women over preference or good, only possible or impossible. Women cannot tolerate refutation of their emotions. This is what deprives them of agency. They cannot tolerate being at fault in the minds of others – only when they fault themselves. Women’s “Intuitions (impulses)” are almost unbearable, and without training (Stoicism, Buddhism, Religion) they cannot cope with them, and if they can cope with them, they cannot still cope with the confusion created by the inability to trust those emotions and continuously fight them with reason. So this is the origin feminism, the success of postmodernism, and the female affinity for socialism and marxism, and female interest in literary rather than scientific thought: They are constantly seeking excuses not to discipline their impulses. Men must constantly suppress ours or danger will result in the near term. The problem is that if we don’t suppress women’s danger results in the long term.

    Every woman is pandora, and we are the guardians of the box.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 11:23:00 UTC

  • The Choice: Episode 34 – Our Choice. We Choose: Prosecution, Persecution, Punishment, Eradication.

    (important)(core)(the consolidated idea) There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination. A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing. By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury. And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel. And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech. So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity. The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine. May 19, 2018 9:10am

  • The Choice: Episode 34 – Our Choice. We Choose: Prosecution, Persecution, Punishment, Eradication.

    (important)(core)(the consolidated idea) There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination. A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing. By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury. And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel. And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech. So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity. The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine. May 19, 2018 9:10am

  • –“What Are the Factors Causing Such Widespread Mental Illness?”–

    —“In your opinion , what are the most salient factors causing such widespread mental illness that we can realistically address ?”—Edgar Braintree  1) de-socialization, 2) dissolution of the family. 3) dissolution of civic society and its institutions. 4) de-norming of society 5) school is wasted after 5th grade and counter-correspondent with reality. 6) lack of physical development and exercise in men. 7) De-competition of the male experience and therefore the incentives of males to function in society. In effect we are making it impossible for people to calculate a ‘fit’.
    May 19, 2018 8:59pm

  • ARROGANCE, ENEMIES, AND CULT ACCUSATIONS ARE JUST SUCCESS MARKERS @ Bernard Mito

    ARROGANCE, ENEMIES, AND CULT ACCUSATIONS ARE JUST SUCCESS MARKERS

    @ Bernard Mitochondrie

    (… “you are a legend in some” … )

    The more enemies a man has the more substantive his threat to them. Friends tell us little. Enemies tell us a great deal. The fact that people must counter-signal to defend their malinvestments from my arguments is simply evidence of their malinvestments, and nothing more.

    I attacked the libertards and ancaps as a means of marketing. Not because I wanted to change their malinvestments. But because I wanted to deny them the signals from those malinvestments.

    A cult of the law is a compliment for continuing western civilizations central competitive value. I can’t ask for higher praise or greater success.

    I’m arrogant so that I can (a) draw in and defeat pretentious sophists like you (which I did today), and (b) becasue it causes people to use emotion and more readily expose their incentives and mistakes, and (c) to counter the signal value of sophomoric arguments (like I’m doing to you), so that the male attempt to seek dominance signals at my expense is frustrated.

    In person, anyone who has met me will tell you I’m patient, kind, helpful, humorous (except in the face of intellectual dishonesty).

    I mean, you shot your wad and you’ve shown you’ve got nothing but sophisms, false premises and confusions. And worse, that you don’t understand at all what i”m talking about by asserting that I engage in justificationism rather than survival (falsificationism).

    I mean, in that sense you’re kinda ‘dumb’ because even the newbs tend to get that part figured out.

    Your vocabulary and structure of argument suggest you have intellectual capacity, but your values suggest you have low sexual social economic and political market value, and are trying to compensate by a means that does not seem to be working at any scale whatsoever.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 20:16:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf): Aping recent results in humans, Capuchin monk

    Retweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf):

    Aping recent results in humans, Capuchin monkeys show no evidence of ego depletion, the exhaustion of the willpower muscle. I still find Roy Baumeister a towering figure of psychology!
    http://animalbehaviorandcognition.org/article.php?id=1131 https://t.co/dDEGCddNxp

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 14:52:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997490063897440258

  • RT @DegenRolf: Aping recent results in humans, Capuchin monkeys show no evidence

    RT @DegenRolf: Aping recent results in humans, Capuchin monkeys show no evidence of ego depletion, the exhaustion of the willpower muscle.…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 14:52:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997490013079261185

  • Male and female brains differ structurally. Male and female brains differ in end

    Male and female brains differ structurally.

    Male and female brains differ in endocrine responses.

    Male and female brains differ in cognitive biases.

    Male and female brains vary morally because of those differences.

    What I think people are confused by is:

    – That these are only biases and we all share experiences.

    – That our brains divide the labor of searching for opportunity (prey) and searching for risk (predators).

    – That some of us develop in more masculine environments and therefore adapt to them through ‘exercise’ of those cognitive, emotional, and moral biases; and some of us develop in more femiine environments and adapt to them through like exercise. THe problem is that both males and females need sufficient stresses of adaptation to function in their gender roles.

    So there are more feminine males and more masculine males in both body, emotions, and minds.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-18 11:51:00 UTC