Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • NO, I’M HONESTLY CALLY POMO’S CRIMINALS. As for dishonest, no, I am HONESTLY (Tr

    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? ;)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 11:21:00 UTC

  • Guys are betting an on straw horse, and there there aren’t any trojans inside. G

    Guys are betting an on straw horse, and there there aren’t any trojans inside. Generative anthropology… omfg. Just deal with it: RELATIVISM IS NECESSARY FOR SELLING SNAKE OIL.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 03:33:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062186595040878593

    Reply addressees: @TheOldOrder1 @TrueDilTom @RichardBSpencer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062174667786649600

    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/1062174667786649600

  • what theory is NOT storytelling? The subatomic particles? how about newtonian gr

    what theory is NOT storytelling? The subatomic particles? how about newtonian gravity? what about the evolution of cooperation? What about the evolution of the law? What can yu tell me about anything that ISN”T as story?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 00:10:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062135495600300032

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062132945715126272

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle The only thing I claimed to “know” is that EP is nothing but a storytelling enterprise with no independent verification for any hypothesis.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062132945715126272

  • So science consists of using instrumentation both logical and physical to produc

    So science consists of using instrumentation both logical and physical to produce information that allows us to eliminate error from hypothesis, and our warranty ( promise ) that we have done such due diligence. That is all

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:50:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062130646909444096

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle Do historians claim that history is a science?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062128888011280384

  • To say a thing is falsifiable is not to say it is false – only that it is possib

    To say a thing is falsifiable is not to say it is false – only that it is possible to be false within the grammar of expression available for comparison.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 23:46:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062129414278955008

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062129053937872896

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle If hypotheses aren’t falsifiable they’re not scientific.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062129053937872896

  • “there’s nothing more startling for an observant postmodern ‘humanist’ than the

    —“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)”—Paweł Płachecki

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 22:53:00 UTC

  • we can also prevent (idiots) from claiming that which is open to construction an

    we can also prevent (idiots) from claiming that which is open to construction and falsifiable but not falsified from claiming a proof is required, rather than a falsification. But there are a lot of idiots and training idiots is costly… lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 20:50:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062085220885823493

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062078633223876609

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle That doesn’t change the fact that all EP hypotheses are ad hoc.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062078633223876609

  • You are confusing means of falsfication with proof. It is unscientific (a fallac

    You are confusing means of falsfication with proof. It is unscientific (a fallacy) to state that an historical narrative is a proof. such things don’t exist. However, if we can falsify a set and those that remain standing cannot be then we have performed due diligence.
    morover…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 20:49:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062084954245472258

    Reply addressees: @Race__Realist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062078633223876609

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Race__Realist

    @curtdoolittle That doesn’t change the fact that all EP hypotheses are ad hoc.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062078633223876609

  • THE COSTLY SCHOOLING OF THE COCKROACHES OF CRITIQUE —“Curt covering for his ig

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 15:31:00 UTC

  • THE FACT THAT I (WE) HAVE BOTH ADVOCATES AND CRITICS IS EVIDENCE OF THE VERACITY

    THE FACT THAT I (WE) HAVE BOTH ADVOCATES AND CRITICS IS EVIDENCE OF THE VERACITY OF THE IDEAS

    —“Hello, I hear you’re a Bad Man with some extreme views. Someone posted screen caps of you. Your position seemed reasonable to me so thought I’d 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…. 😉

    (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.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-12 15:12:00 UTC