Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • Domestication by Family Unit

    —“It was precisely this domestication of men and women into family units that propelled Europeans forward. That the Germans were more monogamously disciplined than the Celts is why they went on to be the source of Northern European success, more so than the Irish. The eugenic footprint can be seen even to this day.”— Josh Jeppson

  • The Origins of the Left’s Effeminate R-Selection Bias

    I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory. This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).

    In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality. They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all. They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences. Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously. It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • The Origins of the Left’s Effeminate R-Selection Bias

    I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory. This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).

    In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality. They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all. They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences. Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously. It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • The Rational Risk Pursuit And Aversion Of Genders

    (By Eli Harman) —” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant. That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.

    Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe. So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties. The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks. But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”—

  • The Rational Risk Pursuit And Aversion Of Genders

    (By Eli Harman) —” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant. That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.

    Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe. So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties. The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks. But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”—

  • The Best Way To Cull The Bottom Appears To Be To Leave Them Behind And Move Away

    —“East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) obtain the highest mean IQ at 105. Europeans follow with an IQ of 100. Some ways below these are the Inuit or Eskimos (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), and South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these are the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67), the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, and the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).”—

  • The Best Way To Cull The Bottom Appears To Be To Leave Them Behind And Move Away

    —“East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) obtain the highest mean IQ at 105. Europeans follow with an IQ of 100. Some ways below these are the Inuit or Eskimos (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), and South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these are the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67), the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, and the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).”—

  • “Hyperagency bias is strong in the analytics of the sexual marketplace. Never un

    “Hyperagency bias is strong in the analytics of the sexual marketplace. Never underestimate madness of female solipsism. Gynocentrism is inherently devoid of abstraction by merit of its collective solipsism. Understanding the plight of men is impossible for them. Realize this. Ideology is rationalisation for current power dynamics of the sexual marketplace. Even in Saudi arabia there is more divorces than new marriages today” — Matej Lovrić

    (a) Marriage (a corporation of shared assets) is bad for men. (b) A redistributive government is bad for men.

    Men will eventually figure this out.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-07 15:19:00 UTC

  • ONE QUESTION FOR MEN: IN WHAT PRIORITY DO YOU PRACTICE THESE ROLES? 1 – DEFENDER

    ONE QUESTION FOR MEN: IN WHAT PRIORITY DO YOU PRACTICE THESE ROLES?

    1 – DEFENDER: Warrior/Sheriff/Rescue/Athlete,

    2 – COUNSELOR: Priest/Intellectual/Scientist/Judge

    3 – PRODUCER: Governor/Financier/Merchant/Craftsman/Laborer,

    4 – CARETAKER: Lover/Husband/Father/Brother/Friend

    THANKS

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-03 03:23:00 UTC

  • LADIES – YOU”RE NOT THINKING IT THROUGH. MEN ARE SLOW BUT WE LEARN AND WE ADAPT

    LADIES – YOU”RE NOT THINKING IT THROUGH. MEN ARE SLOW BUT WE LEARN AND WE ADAPT AND YOU WON”T LIKE IT.

    Listen ladies. If you won’t have enough children, then why are we men supposed to create order, civilization, prosperity?

    You aren’t thinking this through.

    You do understand that pickup trucks, keg parties, fires, and rifles, are a lot more fun that working every day right? I mean, If we can get away with a laptop, fifty guys with weapons, campfires at night, and meat to eat then life is pretty damned good.

    So keep it in mind. We don’t build civilization for us. We build it for you. Women are riders on their men’s achievements.

    But if you won’t keep it going, then why should we?

    Bear children. Raise them well. Four at a minimum. Six if you can.

    If you agree, then I think men will agree to fund you.

    Otherwise america would make a great afghanistan.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 03:59:00 UTC