[E]xplaining why we have failed to integrate Russians into western Civilization despite their membership in Christendom and their obvious similarities to Americans: trust. This is a rather deep video that demonstrates the distribution of trust from Chinese “delay and deceive” constant deception, to Russian/Muslim “honor in lying”, to German Truth and Duty, to British moral optimism, to American Utopianism and how it affects each country. Then we discuss how we can unite these different ‘time preferences’ and ‘risk profiles’ into a vast intra-civilizational distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor using Rule of law, if only we can end American ideological Utopianism and Russian lying and legal corruption.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Q&A: Boosting our Spirits: Love Your Kin. Reproduce Your Kin. We Will Win.
—“Curt: Maybe I’m wrong; maybe I misread it; maybe you aren’t so in favor of the continuation of violent types as have come from my family,”— I am trying to RESTORE violence to political discourse. When I talk about genetic pacification I’m criticizing IMPULSIVITY not violence. I want men to be violent in the suppression of free-riders, criminals, usurpers and invaders. Awarrior, a sheriff, and judge and a king use violence for good. A free-rider, criminal, usurper and invader use it for parasitism. Violence is neither good or bad, it is merely put to good or bad ends. If we abandon violence then we cannot put it to good ends – and we need to.
—“…but you have restored pride and a sense of urgency in me to keep the traditional European family alive. I know my mother, and aunts, and uncles would love to shake your hand for doing that to me, as they long considered me a lost cause, a man “too smart for his own good,” but you have in some ways circled me back home.”— Well you made my day if not my week. Thank you. Because that is what I want to do. Restore moral authority and intellectual credibility to our aristocratic political system. But the fact that I influenced your life a bit is the best feeling I can hope for. —“For a while, I considered children and child-rearing as these unexplainably horrendous endeavors, and it must seem that way to people with destroyed heritages, to people who’ve lost the connection to the traditional family structure. … I’m actually visiting my sister’s place right now, with her recent daughter, and her teething cries doesn’t really bother me, because I look at it in a larger, prouder context, thanks to you.”— —“I see our people going down, the same people who created most of what has ever been great in this word, and having men like you in my life who can give rational reason to not give up, is important to me. It makes me want to find a nice Germanic lass and make 6 kids.”— OK. Now I’m almost moved to tears. That’s exactly what we need to do. –“This is what proper parents do for their children; we need to restore the proper family, to head off this dysgenic, infertile decline.”— Reproduction is also UNDER YOUR CONTROL, where politics, law and the economy are not. You have complete control over it. So, be fertile and prosper. 🙂 Men need to understand the collapse and why it occurred. We have to ignore feminist parasitism and rebellion and restore the family. We can defeat them in a few generations by merely ending immigration of the underclasses, and out-breeding them by two to one. THANKS -
Q&A: Boosting our Spirits: Love Your Kin. Reproduce Your Kin. We Will Win.
—“Curt: Maybe I’m wrong; maybe I misread it; maybe you aren’t so in favor of the continuation of violent types as have come from my family,”— I am trying to RESTORE violence to political discourse. When I talk about genetic pacification I’m criticizing IMPULSIVITY not violence. I want men to be violent in the suppression of free-riders, criminals, usurpers and invaders. Awarrior, a sheriff, and judge and a king use violence for good. A free-rider, criminal, usurper and invader use it for parasitism. Violence is neither good or bad, it is merely put to good or bad ends. If we abandon violence then we cannot put it to good ends – and we need to.
—“…but you have restored pride and a sense of urgency in me to keep the traditional European family alive. I know my mother, and aunts, and uncles would love to shake your hand for doing that to me, as they long considered me a lost cause, a man “too smart for his own good,” but you have in some ways circled me back home.”— Well you made my day if not my week. Thank you. Because that is what I want to do. Restore moral authority and intellectual credibility to our aristocratic political system. But the fact that I influenced your life a bit is the best feeling I can hope for. —“For a while, I considered children and child-rearing as these unexplainably horrendous endeavors, and it must seem that way to people with destroyed heritages, to people who’ve lost the connection to the traditional family structure. … I’m actually visiting my sister’s place right now, with her recent daughter, and her teething cries doesn’t really bother me, because I look at it in a larger, prouder context, thanks to you.”— —“I see our people going down, the same people who created most of what has ever been great in this word, and having men like you in my life who can give rational reason to not give up, is important to me. It makes me want to find a nice Germanic lass and make 6 kids.”— OK. Now I’m almost moved to tears. That’s exactly what we need to do. –“This is what proper parents do for their children; we need to restore the proper family, to head off this dysgenic, infertile decline.”— Reproduction is also UNDER YOUR CONTROL, where politics, law and the economy are not. You have complete control over it. So, be fertile and prosper. 🙂 Men need to understand the collapse and why it occurred. We have to ignore feminist parasitism and rebellion and restore the family. We can defeat them in a few generations by merely ending immigration of the underclasses, and out-breeding them by two to one. THANKS -
Aristocracy A Better Evolutionary Strategy for Whom?
[A]RISTOCRACY IS A BETTER EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR EVERYONE WHO IS *NOT* A FREE RIDER OR PARASITE. Aristocracy suppresses free riding, opportunistic profiting from free riders, and conquest by free riders.
-
Aristocracy A Better Evolutionary Strategy for Whom?
[A]RISTOCRACY IS A BETTER EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY FOR EVERYONE WHO IS *NOT* A FREE RIDER OR PARASITE. Aristocracy suppresses free riding, opportunistic profiting from free riders, and conquest by free riders.
-
Next Videos On The Agenda
1) THE GREAT COMPROMISE: THE FAMILY (hopefully with female hosts)
2) CONTRA-FUKUYAMA – THE END OF HISTORY IS THE TRUTHFUL SOCIETY (OR AT LEAST THE NEXT STAGE OF IT) (the high trust society, the private bureaus) 3) THEN: COMPARISON OF LEGAL SYSTEMS LEADING TO THE STRICT LOGICAL CONSTRUCTION OF LAW AND LEGISLATIVE CONTRACT (PROOFS) (Law as philosophy) (the failure to separate out the law of commons/norms) Not sure I know anyone who can play the role of interviewer for these two. Maybe Roman can do the first. But who can do the second? -
Next Videos On The Agenda
1) THE GREAT COMPROMISE: THE FAMILY (hopefully with female hosts)
2) CONTRA-FUKUYAMA – THE END OF HISTORY IS THE TRUTHFUL SOCIETY (OR AT LEAST THE NEXT STAGE OF IT) (the high trust society, the private bureaus) 3) THEN: COMPARISON OF LEGAL SYSTEMS LEADING TO THE STRICT LOGICAL CONSTRUCTION OF LAW AND LEGISLATIVE CONTRACT (PROOFS) (Law as philosophy) (the failure to separate out the law of commons/norms) Not sure I know anyone who can play the role of interviewer for these two. Maybe Roman can do the first. But who can do the second? -
Ethnocentrism Is Superior to Humanitarianism at Suppressing Free Riders
—“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders. If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.
Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper. Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-
-
Ethnocentrism Is Superior to Humanitarianism at Suppressing Free Riders
—“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders. If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.
Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper. Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-
-
The Second Enlightenment
[W]e had to restore science(truth) in order to end more than a thousand years of levantine mysticism. We are now going to have to restore science (truth) in order to end more than a century of levantine pseudoscience. Liars love their lies. But we can defeat them, with Truth. Liberty in our lifetimes.