Author: Curt Doolittle

(important post)

—How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

[B]ecause eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties. 1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism) 2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism). 3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics). The first is simply non logical and immoral. The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable. Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism. Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males. So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters. Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males. Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement. A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity. But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine. Does that hurt? Well, you know it’s just true. The data is in. Women have no place in politics. It’s suicidal.

(important post)

—How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

[B]ecause eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties. 1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism) 2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism). 3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics). The first is simply non logical and immoral. The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable. Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism. Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males. So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters. Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males. Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement. A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity. But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine. Does that hurt? Well, you know it’s just true. The data is in. Women have no place in politics. It’s suicidal.