Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • The Steppe Manufactures Aggression?

    SO IS THIS RIGHT?

    • Africa generated variation because it is actually quite a hostile climate.
      the first waves out were not aggressive people.
    • Each new wave has been more aggressive than the last, and exterminated, raped, mated with, or ate the previous generation.
    • At some point the steppe and desert started breeding aggression because of herding.
    • The steppe took over from Africa as the primary means of evolving increased aggression.
    • This process has continued with the Indian civilization first to be exterminated, then the Iranian and byzantine. Then the many attacks on Europe. The conquest and conversion of Russia to an aggressive steppe culture.
    • Islam is an adaptation of religion for steppe and desert cultures.
    • Islam is the most aggressive religion-political system yet.
    • Only the Chinese are wiling to resist it.
    Is this right?

  • The Steppe Manufactures Aggression?

    SO IS THIS RIGHT?

    • Africa generated variation because it is actually quite a hostile climate.
      the first waves out were not aggressive people.
    • Each new wave has been more aggressive than the last, and exterminated, raped, mated with, or ate the previous generation.
    • At some point the steppe and desert started breeding aggression because of herding.
    • The steppe took over from Africa as the primary means of evolving increased aggression.
    • This process has continued with the Indian civilization first to be exterminated, then the Iranian and byzantine. Then the many attacks on Europe. The conquest and conversion of Russia to an aggressive steppe culture.
    • Islam is an adaptation of religion for steppe and desert cultures.
    • Islam is the most aggressive religion-political system yet.
    • Only the Chinese are wiling to resist it.
    Is this right?

  • How Far Are You Willing To Go?

    [H]OW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO? To protect your family? To protect your tribe? To protect your civilization? To protect mankind?

    What are you willing to do? Talk is cheap. Gossip is ineffective. The only solution is to raise the cost of the status quo until it is intolerable.

    Source: (5) Curt Doolittle

  • How Far Are You Willing To Go?

    [H]OW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO? To protect your family? To protect your tribe? To protect your civilization? To protect mankind?

    What are you willing to do? Talk is cheap. Gossip is ineffective. The only solution is to raise the cost of the status quo until it is intolerable.

    Source: (5) Curt Doolittle

  • Grid of Cultural Tactics

    1) TRUTH AND DECEIT,
    2) MASCULINE AND FEMININE,
    3) HOMOGENOUS AND HETEROGENEOUS.

    ———————TRUTH——————————
    MASCULINE————————-FEMININE
    —————————————————————-
    TEXAS………..GERMAN…………BRITISH 
    …………………..JAPAN…………….FRENCH
    ……………………………………………LATIN
    AMERICAN………………………….HINDU
    …………………..CHINA…………………………..
    ISLAM……….. RUSSIA……………JUDAISM
    —————————————————————
    ——————DECEPTION—————

    Note that the american/hindu line represents “idealism” more so than deception.
    Latins and french are pragmatic.  Anglos and Germans ‘truthful’.

    More later. Just capturing the idea while I’m thinking of it.

    Source: (3) Curt Doolittle

  • Grid of Cultural Tactics

    1) TRUTH AND DECEIT,
    2) MASCULINE AND FEMININE,
    3) HOMOGENOUS AND HETEROGENEOUS.

    ———————TRUTH——————————
    MASCULINE————————-FEMININE
    —————————————————————-
    TEXAS………..GERMAN…………BRITISH 
    …………………..JAPAN…………….FRENCH
    ……………………………………………LATIN
    AMERICAN………………………….HINDU
    …………………..CHINA…………………………..
    ISLAM……….. RUSSIA……………JUDAISM
    —————————————————————
    ——————DECEPTION—————

    Note that the american/hindu line represents “idealism” more so than deception.
    Latins and french are pragmatic.  Anglos and Germans ‘truthful’.

    More later. Just capturing the idea while I’m thinking of it.

    Source: (3) Curt Doolittle

  • On Gays, Gay Marriage, and the Consequence of Breaking the Limits of Tolerance

    (interesting) (some novel ideas) [T]wo over-the-top, 60-year-old, male, American, gay travelers at the table across from me, in ‘full whine’. (Full Bitch is a hostile countenance, Full Whine is just a complaining countenance.) I think gay men are pretty awesome ‘additions’ to civilization. I mean, how would I dress myself, without them? Seriously? How much MORE crazy would women be without a gay male friend? In general, I tend to see gay men as having the best of both gender’s worlds, with the drawback of a female need for confirmation and approval that is almost impossible to satisfy. I don’t envy them really. But in my world we are all unequal, and we divide up the universe into a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, judgement, demand, advocacy and labour. The counter proposition (which Hoppe was crucified for) is that the gay time preference does not contribute to the inter-generational, inter-temporal, reproductive order. And so this makes me question the value of such perception – and perhaps criticise it. I am not sure I buy this argument. And I am fairly sure that enfranchising the gay community provides them with identical incentives. But even if it’s true, that is a question of politics not of individual rights to be free of and obligations to avoid parasitism. And once we understand that being gay is an in-utero ‘birth defect’ that runs in families, and not a moral failure, it is not something we can really seek to suppress. If it’s not a choice, our actions are irrelevant. I’ve always supported civil partnerships for gay couples. I am still not terribly happy with the idea of redefining ‘marriage’, because I don’t see that level of permanence in gay relationships, and second the purpose of ‘marriage’ is intertemporal reproduction, and third, the purpose of marriage is to meritocratic-ally regulate reproduction through property rights. Despite having had close female gay friends, I find that culture to be as negative as male gay culture is celebratory. I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t think I want to spend time on it really. Too many other problems to solve. Not sure I can really get my mind around the problem either. The postmodern strategy of is to use the media to repeat exposure until the disgust response is either acclimated or shamed out of use. I have never had a disgust response to gay personalities (although I seem to have one for transvestites). I definitely have one to gay sex. I can’t go there even for a moment. I am extremely worried that the left will continue to seek status signals by expanding perversity. Not because they want to, but because that is what the left does to find purpose and status and groupishness in life. Leftists intuit the female reproductive strategy: rallying and shaming in numbers to achieve by political force what they cannot achieve by voluntary exchange. Gay marriage was probably the borderline between European civilization and the brazilification of the Americas. No one else will follow us. We are no longer a country to imitate. We are the symbol of what to reject. So we are probably at the limit of tolerance now. If it’s time to redefine marriage, it’s also time to redefine government and law. And that’s my plan. And it’s working.

  • On Gays, Gay Marriage, and the Consequence of Breaking the Limits of Tolerance

    (interesting) (some novel ideas) [T]wo over-the-top, 60-year-old, male, American, gay travelers at the table across from me, in ‘full whine’. (Full Bitch is a hostile countenance, Full Whine is just a complaining countenance.) I think gay men are pretty awesome ‘additions’ to civilization. I mean, how would I dress myself, without them? Seriously? How much MORE crazy would women be without a gay male friend? In general, I tend to see gay men as having the best of both gender’s worlds, with the drawback of a female need for confirmation and approval that is almost impossible to satisfy. I don’t envy them really. But in my world we are all unequal, and we divide up the universe into a distribution of perception, cognition, knowledge, judgement, demand, advocacy and labour. The counter proposition (which Hoppe was crucified for) is that the gay time preference does not contribute to the inter-generational, inter-temporal, reproductive order. And so this makes me question the value of such perception – and perhaps criticise it. I am not sure I buy this argument. And I am fairly sure that enfranchising the gay community provides them with identical incentives. But even if it’s true, that is a question of politics not of individual rights to be free of and obligations to avoid parasitism. And once we understand that being gay is an in-utero ‘birth defect’ that runs in families, and not a moral failure, it is not something we can really seek to suppress. If it’s not a choice, our actions are irrelevant. I’ve always supported civil partnerships for gay couples. I am still not terribly happy with the idea of redefining ‘marriage’, because I don’t see that level of permanence in gay relationships, and second the purpose of ‘marriage’ is intertemporal reproduction, and third, the purpose of marriage is to meritocratic-ally regulate reproduction through property rights. Despite having had close female gay friends, I find that culture to be as negative as male gay culture is celebratory. I don’t know how to fix that. I don’t think I want to spend time on it really. Too many other problems to solve. Not sure I can really get my mind around the problem either. The postmodern strategy of is to use the media to repeat exposure until the disgust response is either acclimated or shamed out of use. I have never had a disgust response to gay personalities (although I seem to have one for transvestites). I definitely have one to gay sex. I can’t go there even for a moment. I am extremely worried that the left will continue to seek status signals by expanding perversity. Not because they want to, but because that is what the left does to find purpose and status and groupishness in life. Leftists intuit the female reproductive strategy: rallying and shaming in numbers to achieve by political force what they cannot achieve by voluntary exchange. Gay marriage was probably the borderline between European civilization and the brazilification of the Americas. No one else will follow us. We are no longer a country to imitate. We are the symbol of what to reject. So we are probably at the limit of tolerance now. If it’s time to redefine marriage, it’s also time to redefine government and law. And that’s my plan. And it’s working.

  • Property:Positive / Commons:Negative

    [P]roperty is an attempt to solve the problem of decidability on the use of resources. But no matter how we arrange property we still have the problem of producing commons – where we define ‘commons’ as an investment that produces goods, but must be free of privatization (consumption). (Parks are a great example because their central function is to prevent consumption of land – they have no other ‘use’ than transit and experience.) Some commons produce status (art, poems, plays, parks, monuments, monumental architecture). Some commons improve quality of life and safety (sewers, water treatment, armies). Some improve prosperity through trade (roads, street cars, railways, airports). To qualify as a commons, the use of the good must not be limited to those who paid for it. It’s just that the consumption of the good is prohibited. Property=consumption (positive).  Commons=preservation(negative).

  • Property:Positive / Commons:Negative

    [P]roperty is an attempt to solve the problem of decidability on the use of resources. But no matter how we arrange property we still have the problem of producing commons – where we define ‘commons’ as an investment that produces goods, but must be free of privatization (consumption). (Parks are a great example because their central function is to prevent consumption of land – they have no other ‘use’ than transit and experience.) Some commons produce status (art, poems, plays, parks, monuments, monumental architecture). Some commons improve quality of life and safety (sewers, water treatment, armies). Some improve prosperity through trade (roads, street cars, railways, airports). To qualify as a commons, the use of the good must not be limited to those who paid for it. It’s just that the consumption of the good is prohibited. Property=consumption (positive).  Commons=preservation(negative).