Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • I DON”T DO RACISM, BUT CLASSISM AND NATIONALISM I attack the underclasses by lim

    I DON”T DO RACISM, BUT CLASSISM AND NATIONALISM

    I attack the underclasses by limiting reproduction.

    I attack lies. I attack parasitism. And I promote reciprocity.

    I am not in on the race thing, but the class thing. You take all the IQ 160+ members of all the races in the world and breed them together, and you’ll probably get something better than any one of the members. Just how it is.

    On the other hand you let the people under 90, and now, probably the people under 105 breed, and you’re fucked.

    It takes about 105 to be educated, and about 115 to get a ‘real’ college education, and about 125 to get on island 120 (a good median), and about 135 to synthesize ideas, and about 145 to begin to invent new ideas.

    It’s just that way.

    I’m not a racist. I’m a classist and a nationalist, and nationalist and monarchist, only because the only way to domesticate the animal man is to let families raise their own kin given what their kin need to transcend.

    Every tribe can transcend under monarchy (natural law)

    Every tribe will be destroyed under corporatism (universalism)

    The human race will be destroyed under abrahamism (religion)

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 14:53:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION’S TEST OF RECIPROCITY 1) Dominance hierarchy: Fitness giving access to

    EVOLUTION’S TEST OF RECIPROCITY

    1) Dominance hierarchy: Fitness giving access to opportunities, allies, and mates.

    2) Possible Means of Coercion: Force (threat, punishment, murder), Remuneration (Trade, deprivation from trade), Gossip (rallying, shaming, lionizing)

    3) Demonstrated Merit using possible Means of Coercion: Violence, Productivity, Bribery, Voluntary Exchange, Fraud, Theft, Free-Riding.

    4) Only Coercive means not in violation of Reciprocity: Productive, Fully informed, voluntary Exchange, free of imposition of costs upon that which has previously been obtained by exchange.

    5) Single empirical cause of moral reactions: violations of or advancement of, reciprocity.

    6) Single evolutionary instinct necessary for the persistence of cooperation reciprocity.

    7) Only possible test of Morality: Reciprocity.

    8) Function of evolution: suppress the reproduction of those that cannot meet the tests of reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 14:14:00 UTC

  • The only reason to engage in consent is that it is more rewarding to engage in s

    The only reason to engage in consent is that it is more rewarding to engage in such consent than it is to engage in predation or parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 17:27:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867431876314755083

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867430416298455041

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867430416298455041

  • ARISTOCRACY… So, mostly for news, I’m not kidding when I say start from “Why I

    ARISTOCRACY…

    So, mostly for news, I’m not kidding when I say start from “Why I and my kin, clan, and tribe prefer to cooperate with you rather than war, kill, rape, enslave, possess, and occupy that which is currently yours?”

    I start from the position that my only concern is the competitive superiority of myself, my kin, my tribe. And that I can always choose predation, cooperation, or boycott (avoidance).

    All else is merely utilitarian in the pursuit of those ends.

    The difference is that I want to increase our numbers, so that the cost of our superiority is minimized, and the risk of its loss minimized. And the way that I can do that is to create peers with similar interests: sovereignty.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 15:26:00 UTC

  • I start all ethical reasoning with the question of ‘Why don’t I take from, ensla

    I start all ethical reasoning with the question of ‘Why don’t I take from, enslave, or kill you and yours?’ Not claims of moral obligation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 14:17:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867384151317635076

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867377426313170944

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867377426313170944

  • I advocate non-parasitism every day. The result of sovereignty is private, mixed

    I advocate non-parasitism every day. The result of sovereignty is private, mixed, and common property, and markets in everything: Eugenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 13:03:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867365559951929344

    Reply addressees: @BernardoGrando @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867364463808303105

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867364463808303105

  • False dichotomy. I don’t advocate capitalism or socialism (common goods), I advo

    False dichotomy. I don’t advocate capitalism or socialism (common goods), I advocate reciprocity as incentive not to prey upon.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 12:56:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867363779151106049

    Reply addressees: @BernardoGrando @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867311939638177793

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867311939638177793

  • MORALS MAY BE RELATIVE BUT MORALITY IS ABSOLUTE. (really) Reciprocity is an evol

    MORALS MAY BE RELATIVE BUT MORALITY IS ABSOLUTE.

    (really)

    Reciprocity is an evolutionary necessity for a cooperative species of marginal differences in capabilities. And this sensitivity must evolve in parallel to cooperation.

    We universally sense reciprocity and reward it, and sense irreciprocity and punish it – so it must have genetic origins.

    Moral senses vary by gender, and within males, reflecting our different reproductive strategies. This variation is consistent so it must have genetic origins.

    Moral sensitivity applies only to kin and in-group members, or potential outgroup members, and effectively dissipates with kin-distance. This again is an evolutionary necessity.

    However, given that property allocations (of all kinds) vary from group to group, and therefore the set of changes that cause us to sense reciprocity and irreciprocity, vary from group to group.

    And we can be fooled (as we have been) by complexity of information that overloads our genetic ability to sense changes in state and therefore reciprocity.

    For these reasons it is not correct to say that morality is relative, but instead, that it is ALWAYS decidable if we must decide matters of conflict either within group or without group by pure reciprocity.

    Instead, moral decidability always exists regardless of gender, kin-distance, and culture. But we must choose to decide by local group moral norms, or objective moral norms depending upon whether the question we are deciding is between in group and out-group members.

    There is only one possible law for sentient beings in general, one possible for humans in general, and one possible for each in-group.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-23 19:26:00 UTC

  • DECLARATION SIGNATORY PREAMBLE: We will you, in the name of Nature’s God, That y

    DECLARATION SIGNATORY PREAMBLE:

    We will you, in the name of Nature’s God,

    That you divest yourself, and lay apart

    The borrow’d glories that by gift of heaven,

    By law of nature and of nations, ‘long

    To us, our kin, and our heirs;

    namely, our Sovereignty.

    We bid you, all, resign your offices,

    and disband your bureaus,

    And thereby restore our sovereignty,

    That by deceit and device,

    You have stolen from us,

    The native and true owners.

    Or else what follows?

    Bloody constraint;

    For if you seek to deny our sovereignty,

    Even silently in your hearts,

    There will we rake for it.

    Therefore in fierce tempest are we coming,

    In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove,

    That, if requiring fail, we will compel;

    And we bid you, in the bowels of the Lord,

    Deliver up our Sovereignty, and take mercy

    On the poor souls for whom this civil war

    Opens its vasty jaws;

    And on your head you bear,

    The widows’ tears, the orphans’ cries

    The dead men’s blood, the pining maidens groans,

    For husbands, fathers and betrothed lovers,

    That shall be swallow’d in this controversy.

    This is our demand,

    Our threatening

    And our message.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-23 17:14:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY? A double standard is by definition a violation of reciprocity. A do

    RECIPROCITY?

    A double standard is by definition a violation of reciprocity. A double standard then is a deceit. A fraud. A fraud which we may punish.

    Since one may take no action for which one may not perform restitution if one errs, the only restitution for a double standard in matters of political scale, leave only your death as a means of restitution.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-23 09:06:00 UTC