(FB 1542054692 Timestamp) THE COSTLY SCHOOLING OF THE COCKROACHES OF CRITIQUE —“Curt covering for his ignorance of actual knowledge”– Robert Townsend (ie: This ass-clown: https://www.facebook.com/robert.townsend.1088893) So wait, I made the argument that the knowledge was disbursed and that it was degree of available investment that made possible the experimentation that made the nuclear program eventually yield, and you are saying that one person’s ‘genius’ was more influential that time, place, state of available knowledge, number of people in the field, and funding available for experimentation?. This is the same fallacy of the imbeciles who fear artificial intelligence, when it is not a shortage of calculative power (bayesian account) that is the problem but the time and resources to conduct the experiments necessary to incrementally falsify errors in our theories. I mean, the calculus was developed simultaneously. So were just about every one of the technological and scientific advancements – even Einstein was merely first and heaped with undue praise just like every other. All he brought to the problemw as the frame. And yes it was an innovation but it is also a deterministic one. The same is true for great musicians and artists – a market develops over three generations that produces an outlier (mozart, durer, davinci). I mean, I understand you’re not well read but start with The Gifts of Athena and then for a broader view move back to charles murray, then narrow in on the evolution of copper, bronze, iron, and steel, and then move to writing and language. Genius is the archetype but it is economies and the competition between many people that percolates by market means individual excellences. And it is the ECONOMY THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE. Why? textual interpretation is cheap, but experiments are costly. the reason we can’t make more progress in physics at the moment appears to be nothing more than we can’t get anyone to put up the 10B it would take to run the next scale of tests…. So I mean, you can use CRITIQUE (sophism) to attempt to position that I have not put forth an argument, but as I have just illustrated, I have both done so and illustrated how childish your ‘hero worship’ is, and how you are YET AGAIN demonstrating the problem of the J-Question’s method of argument by employing Critique against me while ‘heaping undue praise’ on an individual when it is merely the individual who crosses the line first that gets the prize, but it is the CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPETITIVE RACE IN THE FIRST PLACE that made his achievement possible. So again, please do not waste my time. It is not difficult for me to eviscerate ignorant, pre-rational, sophists like yourself, but it is still a waste of my time. There are many fools like you in the world and the cost of intellectually tarring and feathering you morons is not difficult so much as time consuming. Unfortunately you propagate like cockroaches and you sell your idiotic narratives to other cockroaches, at a rate that defeats our ability to correct you with intellectual insecticide. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM Thus endeth the lesson.
Theme: Truth
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542053522 Timestamp) THE FACT THAT I (WE) HAVE BOTH ADVOCATES AND CRITICS IS EVIDENCE OF THE VERACITY OF THE IDEAS —“Hello, I hear youâre a Bad Man with some extreme views. Someone posted screen caps of you. Your position seemed reasonable to me so thought Iâd friend request you. We have mutual friends who are in both camps about you: pro and against.”— A New Friend Hi. Well, ‘bad man’ is probably due to my online persona which is a little over the top for marketing (and education) purposes. The fact that I have pro and against camps is merely evidence of the success of the system of thought generating debate. (one way or another at least men have something worthy of debate). The truth is I CANNOT FIND A CRITIC with any argument any longer. All I can find is people who have yet to understand what I argue, or who argue the sufficiency of the solution, or who argue the practicality of the solution. In general – and I am serious – it is extremely unlikely that for the next few generations at least (if ever), anyone will propose a counter argument any more than they will propose one counter to darwin…. ð (Seriously, I have had no critic emerge other than the sufficiency of the argument, to provide a via-positiva solution to satisfy the market demand for a personal philosophy. And it will become very clear over the coming months that what I said would happen, has – that people who want to produce the via positiva around the aesthetic (elite), martial (physical) and the emotional (stoicism), have emerged to satisfy that market demand – meaning we will in fact produce physical, emotional, and intellectual programs with coherent and consistent themes. The fact that we have reached critical mass recently is probably becoming obvious – even if that critical mass has come more so from the personal philosophical side of the movement than the analytical that I produce.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542054692 Timestamp) THE COSTLY SCHOOLING OF THE COCKROACHES OF CRITIQUE —“Curt covering for his ignorance of actual knowledge”– Robert Townsend (ie: This ass-clown: https://www.facebook.com/robert.townsend.1088893) So wait, I made the argument that the knowledge was disbursed and that it was degree of available investment that made possible the experimentation that made the nuclear program eventually yield, and you are saying that one person’s ‘genius’ was more influential that time, place, state of available knowledge, number of people in the field, and funding available for experimentation?. This is the same fallacy of the imbeciles who fear artificial intelligence, when it is not a shortage of calculative power (bayesian account) that is the problem but the time and resources to conduct the experiments necessary to incrementally falsify errors in our theories. I mean, the calculus was developed simultaneously. So were just about every one of the technological and scientific advancements – even Einstein was merely first and heaped with undue praise just like every other. All he brought to the problemw as the frame. And yes it was an innovation but it is also a deterministic one. The same is true for great musicians and artists – a market develops over three generations that produces an outlier (mozart, durer, davinci). I mean, I understand you’re not well read but start with The Gifts of Athena and then for a broader view move back to charles murray, then narrow in on the evolution of copper, bronze, iron, and steel, and then move to writing and language. Genius is the archetype but it is economies and the competition between many people that percolates by market means individual excellences. And it is the ECONOMY THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE. Why? textual interpretation is cheap, but experiments are costly. the reason we can’t make more progress in physics at the moment appears to be nothing more than we can’t get anyone to put up the 10B it would take to run the next scale of tests…. So I mean, you can use CRITIQUE (sophism) to attempt to position that I have not put forth an argument, but as I have just illustrated, I have both done so and illustrated how childish your ‘hero worship’ is, and how you are YET AGAIN demonstrating the problem of the J-Question’s method of argument by employing Critique against me while ‘heaping undue praise’ on an individual when it is merely the individual who crosses the line first that gets the prize, but it is the CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPETITIVE RACE IN THE FIRST PLACE that made his achievement possible. So again, please do not waste my time. It is not difficult for me to eviscerate ignorant, pre-rational, sophists like yourself, but it is still a waste of my time. There are many fools like you in the world and the cost of intellectually tarring and feathering you morons is not difficult so much as time consuming. Unfortunately you propagate like cockroaches and you sell your idiotic narratives to other cockroaches, at a rate that defeats our ability to correct you with intellectual insecticide. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM Thus endeth the lesson.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542053522 Timestamp) THE FACT THAT I (WE) HAVE BOTH ADVOCATES AND CRITICS IS EVIDENCE OF THE VERACITY OF THE IDEAS —“Hello, I hear youâre a Bad Man with some extreme views. Someone posted screen caps of you. Your position seemed reasonable to me so thought Iâd friend request you. We have mutual friends who are in both camps about you: pro and against.”— A New Friend Hi. Well, ‘bad man’ is probably due to my online persona which is a little over the top for marketing (and education) purposes. The fact that I have pro and against camps is merely evidence of the success of the system of thought generating debate. (one way or another at least men have something worthy of debate). The truth is I CANNOT FIND A CRITIC with any argument any longer. All I can find is people who have yet to understand what I argue, or who argue the sufficiency of the solution, or who argue the practicality of the solution. In general – and I am serious – it is extremely unlikely that for the next few generations at least (if ever), anyone will propose a counter argument any more than they will propose one counter to darwin…. ð (Seriously, I have had no critic emerge other than the sufficiency of the argument, to provide a via-positiva solution to satisfy the market demand for a personal philosophy. And it will become very clear over the coming months that what I said would happen, has – that people who want to produce the via positiva around the aesthetic (elite), martial (physical) and the emotional (stoicism), have emerged to satisfy that market demand – meaning we will in fact produce physical, emotional, and intellectual programs with coherent and consistent themes. The fact that we have reached critical mass recently is probably becoming obvious – even if that critical mass has come more so from the personal philosophical side of the movement than the analytical that I produce.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542129992 Timestamp) —“Are you a right wing libertarian?”— Hard to answer that question any longer. I write on Testimonial (Complete Scientific) Truth; the natural law of reciprocity; nomocracy (rule of law) under that natural law; the uniqueness of western civlization (individual sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, judge-jury-law, and the resulting markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war). In effect the formal logic and science of cooperation that we call ‘social science’ written as ‘law’. “Libertarian” now refers unfortunately to Anarchism since it was usurped by the anarcho capitalists. And “Liberal” has been usurped by the american socialists. And I have lost nearly all my confidence in any form of democracy other than markets – and in doing so moved those markets into the houses of government, eliminating monopoly rule. So classical liberal is not available to me either. You would find my policy recommendations left of center, but my democratic recommendations right of center, and you probably wouldnt understand my economic work. But in the end result, all questions of politics devolve into Masculine Meritocratic, Capitalization, and Eugenics, versus Feminine Equalitarian, Consumption, and Dysgenics. In that sense I am an economic paleolibertarian and an normative paleoconservative in that it is impossible to both be intellectually honest, and sufficiently informed in economics and biology to hold any other proposition than we must pay the underclass to stop reproducing very soon if not immediately, and we must end all underclass immigration and reverse as much of it as possible. There is no other option other than ‘faith’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542126100 Timestamp) NO, I’M HONESTLY CALLY POMO’S CRIMINALS. As for dishonest, no, I am HONESTLY (Truthfully also) claiming GA like POMO is a pseudoscientific fraud for the purpose of restoring a secular cult of abrahamic equalitarianism by the same incremental techniques that were used in the ancient world to undermine the aristocracy, by the same process of selling to women in particular and the useful idiots that pursue the favor of those women, to bring about our conquest yet again by immigration and displacement. And no, there is no value in trying to recreate the levantine culture here in the west, It’s been failing for thousands of years. The chinese and the europeans had it right. BUILD WALLS. WOrse, I am claiming that the only incentive to pursue a pseudoscientific fraud is to use cunning as a weapon of coercion against those lacking sufficient agency to comprehend the consequences of the actions thus inspired. So I am honestly calling such people not just fools, but frauds, and in very real terms – criminals, in a crime against humanity. Is that over the top enough? ;)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542081192 Timestamp) —“there’s nothing more startling for an observant postmodern ‘humanist’ than the moment he discovers that he’s dealing with someone who thinks in terms of what is (and what todo about it) rather than what should be (and how to assure others believe it should too)”—PaweÅ PÅachecki
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542129992 Timestamp) —“Are you a right wing libertarian?”— Hard to answer that question any longer. I write on Testimonial (Complete Scientific) Truth; the natural law of reciprocity; nomocracy (rule of law) under that natural law; the uniqueness of western civlization (individual sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, judge-jury-law, and the resulting markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war). In effect the formal logic and science of cooperation that we call ‘social science’ written as ‘law’. “Libertarian” now refers unfortunately to Anarchism since it was usurped by the anarcho capitalists. And “Liberal” has been usurped by the american socialists. And I have lost nearly all my confidence in any form of democracy other than markets – and in doing so moved those markets into the houses of government, eliminating monopoly rule. So classical liberal is not available to me either. You would find my policy recommendations left of center, but my democratic recommendations right of center, and you probably wouldnt understand my economic work. But in the end result, all questions of politics devolve into Masculine Meritocratic, Capitalization, and Eugenics, versus Feminine Equalitarian, Consumption, and Dysgenics. In that sense I am an economic paleolibertarian and an normative paleoconservative in that it is impossible to both be intellectually honest, and sufficiently informed in economics and biology to hold any other proposition than we must pay the underclass to stop reproducing very soon if not immediately, and we must end all underclass immigration and reverse as much of it as possible. There is no other option other than ‘faith’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542126100 Timestamp) NO, I’M HONESTLY CALLY POMO’S CRIMINALS. As for dishonest, no, I am HONESTLY (Truthfully also) claiming GA like POMO is a pseudoscientific fraud for the purpose of restoring a secular cult of abrahamic equalitarianism by the same incremental techniques that were used in the ancient world to undermine the aristocracy, by the same process of selling to women in particular and the useful idiots that pursue the favor of those women, to bring about our conquest yet again by immigration and displacement. And no, there is no value in trying to recreate the levantine culture here in the west, It’s been failing for thousands of years. The chinese and the europeans had it right. BUILD WALLS. WOrse, I am claiming that the only incentive to pursue a pseudoscientific fraud is to use cunning as a weapon of coercion against those lacking sufficient agency to comprehend the consequences of the actions thus inspired. So I am honestly calling such people not just fools, but frauds, and in very real terms – criminals, in a crime against humanity. Is that over the top enough? ;)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542081192 Timestamp) —“there’s nothing more startling for an observant postmodern ‘humanist’ than the moment he discovers that he’s dealing with someone who thinks in terms of what is (and what todo about it) rather than what should be (and how to assure others believe it should too)”—PaweÅ PÅachecki