Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • MAN IS AMORAL: He knows the moral (what will buy him discounts on the returns of

    MAN IS AMORAL: He knows the moral (what will buy him discounts on the returns of cooperation) and immoral (what will cost him premiums on cooperation or punishment) but he is AMORAL(Rational) and simply CHOOSES WISELY. Nature/Nurture, Violent/Non-Violent, Moral/Immoral. Nonsense.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 20:18:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056278865641906176

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054645599553941504

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DegenRolf

    “The evidence indicates that early humans, rather than being“killer apes”, lived as relatively peaceful hunter-gathers for some 15,000 generations, from the emergence of modern Homo sapiens up until the invention of agriculture.”
    https://t.co/YWUqaBWuGC https://t.co/MOE8AZGmqw

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054645599553941504

  • CHOICE WORDS OF ARGUMENT —Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument) only works

    CHOICE WORDS OF ARGUMENT

    —Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument) only works if (a) you are kin, and (b) you are a woman and can create future kin. Otherwise you are just an opportunity or a cost.

    A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.

    You have no intrinsic value.

    None.—

    When a leftist male argues to ‘feels’ and ‘equality’ and ‘dysgenia’ producing decline, rather than Reals, Inequality, and Eugenia producing Transcendence.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:13:00 UTC

  • by @[503912481:2048:Jayant Bhandari] In conventional wisdom “good people” have b

    by @[503912481:2048:Jayant Bhandari]

    In conventional wisdom “good people” have been too glorified. It is assumed that 80% of the society is of decent people, who like to work with others, pay their taxes and just want to fit in. It is the evil, say, 5% of the people who make life hell for the society. My view is that these 85% are basically meat, without moral or rational anchors. They are adrift and can be made to believe in whatever those in power want them to. The direction of the society is decided by a minority of rational/moral people, the 2% as Curt Doolittle suggests. These people—whether in power or outside—give direction to the society. It is under their leadership that intellectual and financial capital gets accumulated. Here is the real problem… This 2% leaders in Europe have slowly been castrated using political correctness or have become docile because of modern comforts they have grown up in. As the quality of this 2% falls (rather rapidly), Europe is losing its civilization. The counterpart of this 2% of Europe in the Third World is 0.000002%, maybe less–this is the reason why the Third World is always adrift, rudderless, always tending towards Malthusian equilibrium.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 12:34:00 UTC

  • HONOR VS FACE? SEVENTH FOUNDATION? —“This explains so much. Honor vs. face. Th

    HONOR VS FACE? SEVENTH FOUNDATION?

    —“This explains so much. Honor vs. face. The seventh moral foundation?”—Martin Štěpán

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:04:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055596011639463936

  • HONOR VS FACE? SEVENTH FOUNDATION? —“This explains so much. Honor vs. face. Th

    HONOR VS FACE? SEVENTH FOUNDATION?

    —“This explains so much. Honor vs. face. The seventh moral foundation?”—Martin Štěpán

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 19:04:00 UTC

  • 13) … including association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production

    13) … including association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, polities, and defense(war), in scientific terms (The One Language of Truthful Speech, under the One Law of Reciprocity).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:32:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055452156504010752

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • “WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS?” by Zachary Miller (profile link pls?) My g

    “WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS?”

    by Zachary Miller (profile link pls?)

    My grandparents’ generation grew up in neighborhoods surrounded by their extended family. Nobody locked their doors – they didn’t have to. This was because all the mothers, aunts and grandmas carefully watched the kids run around outside while they passed along to each other the traditional feminine arts such as cooking and clothes-making. Meanwhile, the men worked hard, manly jobs. Community life was rich and filled with wholesome tradition. This is when America was great.

    SO WHAT HAPPENED? Beginning in earnest after World War 2, the proponents of consumerism broke up the extended family in at least four major ways:

    1. Shipping jobs overseas forced young men to leave their neighborhood in search of employment.

    2. Paying poor protestants to move into working class Catholic neighborhoods caused the Catholics to disperse into the suburbs.

    3. Agitating for doubling the workforce caused wages to halve, making it almost impossible to raise children on a single income.

    4. The consumerist strip mall commons supplanted the old town center market commons.

    AND WHY? Breaking up the extended family into atomized individuals was perpetuated to further the interests of consumerism. You see, an extended family neighborhood relies upon each other for products and services. On the other hand, atomized individuals will purchase those products and services from the consumer commons.

    It’s that simple.

    (via Brandon Hayes )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 17:18:00 UTC

  • Try to Virtue signal on the entire hierarchy’s behalf, not some segment of it. W

    Try to Virtue signal on the entire hierarchy’s behalf, not some segment of it. We are either an army or a mob. We all do our duty then we are all equal in doing our duty on our collective behalf, even though we are unequal in abilities knowledge and skill.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 16:40:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054049686728966144

  • Try to Virtue signal on the entire hierarchy’s behalf, not some segment of it. W

    Try to Virtue signal on the entire hierarchy’s behalf, not some segment of it. We are either an army or a mob. We all do our duty then we are all equal in doing our duty on our collective behalf, even though we are unequal in abilities knowledge and skill.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 12:39:00 UTC

  • THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF DEFENDING OUR COMMONS by Bill Joslin (perfect example of

    THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF DEFENDING OUR COMMONS

    by Bill Joslin

    (perfect example of economics and law of the commons)

    “When deciding upon defense of the social commons,

    We must continuously calculate “should I bear an opportunity cost (to crush the other) to maintain peace, trust, and cooperation, and therefore to preserve the status quo” versus “the opportunity cost of maintaining the status quo is too high to sustain trust, peace, and cooperation, because the property damages are too high- now we must defect or fight”

    “Our issue today is that our media, academia and state are forcing us to bear the opportunity cost (to not fight) while we watch our properties (decency, culture, transgenerational values, trust) are being dismantled by the mob. We’re at war, but its hard to identify because it is a war of demographics… an ill-defined group which IMO is why identitarianism is on the rise. We’re attempting to identify who, as a group (or army if you will) is under attack and who is attacking. We’re attempting to distinguish friend from foe.”

    And the media, academia and state are obscuring our personal interests under the moral ideal of “tolerance”. If we change the narrative to forbearance, then costs must be defined. If costs are defined, limits to tolerance must be discussed. If limits to tolerance are discussed then it becomes clear we have crossed the limit which demands tolerant to become intolerant ages ago… and if this is clear, then heads will roll.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 11:19:00 UTC