Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • Sense Making

    Under P-Law, proposing or advocating the use of the state (legislation) for irreciprocity, is a crime – a third-degree treason. Women are not rational, reciprocal, or loyal creatures. They are driven by extreme intolerance for uncertainty and as such drive civs to collapse.

    -Curt, you bring up an unresolved dilemma for me: Would it not be more accurate to say “pure feminine sensemaking” is not rational, reciprocal or loyal?-WalterIII

    “Sense-making”  like “True For Me” is relative (a subset) like metaphysics, and “Rationality”, like “True“(testifiable), is absolute (a complete set) like Physics. This is a problem with ambiguity of the term ‘rational’ dependent on context. Their behavior is rational – for women(subset). It is not rational for a polity(set). We face a similar problem with philosophy: Personal, Social (interpersonal), Political(scale), or scientific (complete) philosophy? This is why I work on disambiguation so that we know what ‘general rule’ we are talking about. Unfortunately “rationality(capacity), rational(subset), rational(set), rationalism(method) and Logic and Logical” are conflated – just as ‘truth’ is.

  • Under P-Law, proposing or advocating the use of the state (legislation) for irre

    Under P-Law, proposing or advocating the use of the state (legislation) for irreciprocity, is a crime – a third-degree treason.

    Women are not rational, reciprocal, or loyal creatures. They are driven by extreme intolerance for uncertainty and as such drive civs to collapse.

    -Curt, you bring up an unresolved dilemma for me: Would it not be more accurate to say “pure feminine sensemaking” is not rational, reciprocal or loyal?-WalterIII

    “Sense-making” is relative (a subset) like metaphysics, and rationality is absolute (a complete set) like physics. This is a problem with ambiguity of the term ‘rational’ dependent on context. Their behavior is rational – for women(subset). It is not rational for a polity(set).

    We face a similar problem with philosophy: Personal, Social (interpersonal), Political(scale), or scientific (complete) philosophy?

    This is why I work on disambiguation so that we know what ‘general rule’ we are talking about. Unfortunately “rationality(capacity), rational(subset), rational(set), rationalism(method) and Logic and Logical” are conflated – just as ‘truth’ is.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-11 15:34:50 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105871893527054988

  • Under P-Law, proposing or advocating the use of the state (legislation) for irre

    Under P-Law, proposing or advocating the use of the state (legislation) for irreciprocity, is a crime – a third-degree treason.
    Women are not rational, reciprocal, or loyal creatures. They are driven by extreme intolerance for uncertainty and as such drive civs to collapse.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-11 15:04:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1370027844911259649

    Reply addressees: @Nigel_Farage

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1370009510824337412

  • Under P-Law, proposing or advocating the use of the state (legislation) for irre

    Under P-Law, proposing or advocating the use of the state (legislation) for irreciprocity, is a crime – a third-degree treason.
    Women are not rational, reciprocal, or loyal creatures. They are driven by extreme intolerance for uncertainty and as such drive civs to collapse.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-11 15:04:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1370027756566716426

    Reply addressees: @juniorwolf @GoodDudes2020

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1370014596950601734

  • We just went thru a year of riots. And we just had to have an unarmed national g

    We just went thru a year of riots. And we just had to have an unarmed national guard in DC, and a purge of the guard of our ‘allies’. So what do you think? They can’t win a war and haven’t since ww2. Why?

    Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 18:53:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369723221675753473

    Reply addressees: @JarvisWitts

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369719542998441984

  • Fascism vs Roman Dicatorship in War. Same thing.

    It is extremely difficult to find something that the fascists were ‘wrong’ about other than dependence on a dictator rather than rule of law by natural law. In other words, ‘rule of law fascism’ (meaning zero tolerance) is the optimum polity for homogenous, domesticated peoples. If you want to confuse fascism with two sides of the coin, that’s claiming that fascism is other than a war footing, just like the romans’ used dictators in war.

    (a)Germans were right to seek to restore greater german civilization after the Napoleonic destruction of Europe,

    (b) germans were right to join other Europeans in colonial expansion

    (c) Communism was a threat to europeans.

    (d) Anglo civ’s liberalism (or Swiss) is only suitable for Island/naval/marine states with natural borders, whereas germans require Ordnung and ‘to compete better than others’ given that they are territorial, surrounded, and have fewer resources other than TALENT.

    (e) So Rule of Man Fascism is simply necessary in time of war, and Rule of Law fascism is simply the optimum in time of peace, given that Europe is bounded on the east and south by anti-european civilizations that cannot integrate into or compete with European civilization.

    (f) but there are no conditions under which anything other than zero tolerance for irreciprocity in european civilization is ‘tolerable’ or even ‘utilitarian’ except to ‘fund the enemy’.

  • Fascism vs Roman Dicatorship in War. Same thing.

    It is extremely difficult to find something that the fascists were ‘wrong’ about other than dependence on a dictator rather than rule of law by natural law. In other words, ‘rule of law fascism’ (meaning zero tolerance) is the optimum polity for homogenous, domesticated peoples. If you want to confuse fascism with two sides of the coin, that’s claiming that fascism is other than a war footing, just like the romans’ used dictators in war.

    (a)Germans were right to seek to restore greater german civilization after the Napoleonic destruction of Europe,

    (b) germans were right to join other Europeans in colonial expansion

    (c) Communism was a threat to europeans.

    (d) Anglo civ’s liberalism (or Swiss) is only suitable for Island/naval/marine states with natural borders, whereas germans require Ordnung and ‘to compete better than others’ given that they are territorial, surrounded, and have fewer resources other than TALENT.

    (e) So Rule of Man Fascism is simply necessary in time of war, and Rule of Law fascism is simply the optimum in time of peace, given that Europe is bounded on the east and south by anti-european civilizations that cannot integrate into or compete with European civilization.

    (f) but there are no conditions under which anything other than zero tolerance for irreciprocity in european civilization is ‘tolerable’ or even ‘utilitarian’ except to ‘fund the enemy’.

  • No. Proximity Causes Justifiable Racial Conflcit

    -“Segregation causes racism.”-Bret Weinstein @BretWeinstein

    BRETT: FALSE Proximity causes conflict. That’s the science. Why? a) ingroup preference (kin selection) b) the advantage of ingroup preference (cooperative discounts) c) large differences in the genetic distribution of ability between groups (class sizes) d) resulting divergence in manners, ethics, morals, norms e) resulting competition between imposition of behavioral costs. f) resulting resistance to outgroup parasitism. g) resulting parasites justify parasitism h) organizers of parasitism benefit from developing clientele (leftism) i) and those who resist parasites organize in response (rightism). j) parasitism is an objective ascertainment of the imposition of costs upon the private and common. k) instead, segregation causes internalization of costs – forcing ingroups to pay the cost of their own domestication, organization, production, and reproduction. l) desegregation, and forced school integration have been the greatest failures in political history.

  • No. Proximity Causes Justifiable Racial Conflcit

    -“Segregation causes racism.”-Bret Weinstein @BretWeinstein

    BRETT: FALSE Proximity causes conflict. That’s the science. Why? a) ingroup preference (kin selection) b) the advantage of ingroup preference (cooperative discounts) c) large differences in the genetic distribution of ability between groups (class sizes) d) resulting divergence in manners, ethics, morals, norms e) resulting competition between imposition of behavioral costs. f) resulting resistance to outgroup parasitism. g) resulting parasites justify parasitism h) organizers of parasitism benefit from developing clientele (leftism) i) and those who resist parasites organize in response (rightism). j) parasitism is an objective ascertainment of the imposition of costs upon the private and common. k) instead, segregation causes internalization of costs – forcing ingroups to pay the cost of their own domestication, organization, production, and reproduction. l) desegregation, and forced school integration have been the greatest failures in political history.

  • This kind of threw me. Because it’s exactly what we need to do. We need a Henry

    This kind of threw me. Because it’s exactly what we need to do. We need a Henry Vth Event: a capture of the hostile institutions, liquidation, banning, and to turn them into ruins. Great narrative framing “It worked before, it will work again”.

    (via @NewRightAmerica) https://twitter.com/NewRightAmerica/status/1369309207015612420