Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autis

    RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them. Thoughts: There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE. The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.) And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger. The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms. So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year. But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome. And that means strategy and policy expressed in law. Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.

  • RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autis

    RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them. Thoughts: There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE. The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.) And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger. The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms. So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year. But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome. And that means strategy and policy expressed in law. Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.

  • RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autis

    RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM

    (from Eric Best)

    —“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best

    I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them.

    Thoughts:

    There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE.

    The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.)

    And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger.

    The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms.

    So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year.

    But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome.

    And that means strategy and policy expressed in law.

    Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 07:54:00 UTC

  • –“Curt: Why Do Libertarians Eat Each Other?”—

    –“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world) 2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN. 3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you. Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined. The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals. We just use a lot of words to deny it.

  • –“Curt: Why Do Libertarians Eat Each Other?”—

    –“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world) 2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN. 3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you. Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined. The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals. We just use a lot of words to deny it.

  • “CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek

    –“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”—

    Very smart question.

    1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world)

    2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN.

    3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you.

    Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined.

    The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals.

    We just use a lot of words to deny it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 11:36:00 UTC

  • It is always difficult to debate with the unsophisticated, but those unsophistic

    It is always difficult to debate with the unsophisticated, but those unsophisticated with immoral sensibilities, and dysgenic strategies, are insufficiently rational (meaning evolved human). As such compromise is impossible, and separation necessary.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 18:35:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954784439892152321

    Reply addressees: @ReneeStephen @kjhealy @mattyglesias

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954784077453897729

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ReneeStephen @kjhealy @mattyglesias Ergo, civil war is preferable to being dragged down into the levant, the desert and steppe, southern europe, south america, and india.Some of us prefer (wisely) to take the east asian path to survival and evolution rather than dysgenia. Thanks. It’s all math. And your side loses.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954784077453897729

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ReneeStephen @kjhealy @mattyglesias Ergo, civil war is preferable to being dragged down into the levant, the desert and steppe, southern europe, south america, and india.Some of us prefer (wisely) to take the east asian path to survival and evolution rather than dysgenia. Thanks. It’s all math. And your side loses.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954784077453897729

  • THE “SH-T TEST” NEVER ENDS, BUT IT WORKS BOTH DIRECTIONS We need not constrain t

    THE “SH-T TEST” NEVER ENDS, BUT IT WORKS BOTH DIRECTIONS We need not constrain the folly of our women, because, first, we fear no mens attempt to take them, and second, as women act as women do, we have no fear of defection. The sh-t test never ends. But it works both directions. Defense against defection.

  • THE “SH-T TEST” NEVER ENDS, BUT IT WORKS BOTH DIRECTIONS We need not constrain t

    THE “SH-T TEST” NEVER ENDS, BUT IT WORKS BOTH DIRECTIONS We need not constrain the folly of our women, because, first, we fear no mens attempt to take them, and second, as women act as women do, we have no fear of defection. The sh-t test never ends. But it works both directions. Defense against defection.

  • THE “SH-T TEST” NEVER ENDS, BUT IT WORKS BOTH DIRECTIONS We need not constrain t

    THE “SH-T TEST” NEVER ENDS, BUT IT WORKS BOTH DIRECTIONS

    We need not constrain the folly of our women, because, first, we fear no mens attempt to take them, and second, as women act as women do, we have no fear of defection.

    The sh-t test never ends. But it works both directions. Defense against defection.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 13:05:00 UTC