Author: Curt Doolittle

  • LIMITED NUMBER OF WOMEN CEOS AND BOARD MEMBERS I think we know the answer and ha

    LIMITED NUMBER OF WOMEN CEOS AND BOARD MEMBERS

    I think we know the answer and have known the answer for years:

    1) the distribution of IQ at 130 or higher, which is common threshold in CEO’s and board members, and necessary for marginally competitive advantage means that executive participation by women will max at around 30%. Nature does not produce an equivalent number of marginally different women.

    2) board membership is not fun. It is largely hard work. The material is quantitative. And decisions are legal, funancial, political, factional and risky. Appeals to empathy or sympathy are considered rightly to be attemts at deception. Board members usually have little information and what they do have they must treat skepyically. Consensus can be difficult and intractable.

    3) Women will not as willingly play the cost of maintaining unpleasant, argumentative factional loyalty as often or as well as men, so they are percieved as less trustworthy partners on a team. Those that do are paired with men they agree with. And that combination seems to be powerful.

    4) more men prefer to specialize in abstract rules, and devote their time to one specialization. So more men tend to master what organizations value.

    Free from nevessary domestic toil, women dominate the middle of the economy and men the margins, and assortive mating reinforces that distribution. There is no chance it will change and if it did, those companies operation by existing means would rapidly dominate those with less meritocratic orders.

    We are only equal under the law in the resolution of disputes over property and even then not universally so – as males will attest in family court.

    But we are not equal in ability. Equal in value to others. Equal in status ( mating potential). Nor equal in value to mankind.

    Equality is achieveable in kinship matters, but not commercial relations. And commerce under individualism is not kinship outside of a homogenous city state.

    Just how it is and must be.

    We can bend natures laws but we cannot ignore them.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-17 04:22:00 UTC

  • TO THE POLICE STATE 🙂

    http://www.policestateusa.com/archives/144WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-17 02:32:00 UTC

  • THE CHOICE OF ALIENATION Alienated: ostracized, outcast, irrelevant, indifferent

    THE CHOICE OF ALIENATION

    Alienated: ostracized, outcast, irrelevant, indifferent, without value to the group, independent, alone.

    Why have we evolved this feeling?

    Because it is an instinctual warning that our status is low. Not only are we not desirable mating material. But we do not provide the other members of the group with value. They see no promise that we will provide value. And we see no promise of providing value. So our wishes can be comfortably discounted in any group decision. We need not consume group effort and resources. And we can be left behind in duress (die or be fired). We evolved that feeling so that we would be desperately incentivized to find a way to provide value. In history it was a death sentence. Today it is a subject of cognitive therapy.

    What causes this feeling in history?

    The organization of humans engaged production has been declining from the tribe (Hunter gatherer), to extended family (agrarian settlement), to nuclear family (prohibition on inbreeding), to the Isolated family(industrialism) to the individual (information age and feminism), as the division of labor and knowledge increases due the increase of people in the work-force.

    We evolved to use visible signals, emotional expressions, and personal knowledge of one another, living in bands and tribes, and we now communicate by pricing signals and a hierarchy of manners, ethics and morals, whose only visible feedback is negative, and our only success metric consumption and survival. We are not administered by the knowledge of others, but by antique religious norms, contemporary-religious norms (Postmodernism), an inconceivable network of laws, and a system of credit information which cares nothing about the vicissitudes of our lives. We live in physically isolated spaces, free from the compromise with others, free to imaging our own status within our family, tribe and nation, as whatever we dream it to be. We choose to live alone. We choose our spatial freedom. We choose our freedom to consume. To spend our efforts on the self, without compromise to the family, extended family, clan, tribe and nation. We choose it on purpose. Willingly. And almost universally, all people, who have the opportunity to choose spatial freedom, person consumption, and freedom from compromise do so whenever possible. We are confronted not with inequality, but with the pervasive evidence that we are all equal in our near-irrelevance to one another outside of the mother-child bond. The further west we move the less tangible is the tradition of kinship, so even genes do not guarantee us membership.

    But given the choice we almost always choose consumption. Because we are too selfish to forgo the opportunity for stimulation, experience, consumption and status to compromise with others and reduce both the opportunity to gain stimulation, as well as the chance that the illusion of our status, be erased by constant interaction with others who would dispel it.

    Alienation is the price we pay for selfishness. And we pay it willingly.

    We complain about the prevalence of a McDonalds hamburger, which has more calories than most people could consume in a week, and more chemicals that they could absorb in a lifetime. We complain about the cost of everything, even though our purchasing power is unrivaled.

    We criticize the cost of living near good schools. We envy those with clothes, goods, cars and homes as conspicuous consumers when the only difference between their goods and ours is the status signal that accompanies it, and the conflict this causes between the illusion of our mating status and our observable reality.

    Status in american life requires little more than a college education, a two income family, that provides someone else what they want, so that we can get what we want. But most other people want something the provision of which is mundane, uninteresting, boring, repetitious – because that is what makes something inexpensive.

    We complain about military spending, while it is paid for almost entirely by exporting debt, so the dollars can be used in the market for petroleum, and then we inflate the debt away, conveniently taxing the developed world for our military, while providing us extraordinary trading rights, and the stabilization of prices of commodities, without which americans would lose between a quarter and a third of their standard of living.

    Will women choose to restore the nuclear family and abandon the workplace? Will people forgo selling their labor at ‘jobs’ and return to direct participation in production and commerce, and the risk that comes with doing so? Will they abandon commerce altogether and resort to sustenance farming? It does not appear so.

    Will the american society become as redistributionist as the smaller nations try to? No. We are no longer kin, or near kin. and People sacrifice only for kin. Kinship can be determined by values and culture alone, not genetic relation. But we are not homogenous enough. WHy? Because human moral codes are determined by family structures, family structures by the allocation of property, and the level of technology involved in production. People will not fund alternative moral codes. Redistribution is for the small and homogenous, where homogenous means homogenous family structure, and homogenous morality, homogenous values, and marginally homogenous kinship. Trust is necessary to avoid the economic friction of corruption and a diversity of manners, ethics, morals, values and family structure leads to a competition for status signals, a competition for power, divisiveness, and a decline in trust necessary for the prevention of corruption and the low friction of trade.

    We still worship Marx’s moral vision, which all of us would embrace if it was possible, even though we know that without prices and incentives to inform us what to do, we would be at the merciless subjection of those who would command us into equality. But where our only possible equality is in poverty.

    Everyone wants the same thing: the illusion that is Denmark. The problem is, all the adults can’t figure out any other way to get there. The only way we know of is ‘small’.

    Equality of care for one another amidst the inequality of value to one another is only achievable with kin.

    And that’s where we got the feeling from.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 09:43:00 UTC

  • THE WEST VS THE EAST VS THE ARAB MODEL Citizens as individual actors with the st

    THE WEST VS THE EAST VS THE ARAB MODEL

    Citizens as individual actors with the state as neutral arbiter vs citizens as troublesome dependents to be managed by the paternal head of family.

    “These societies possess the outward trappings of a modern state but are founded on informal patronage networks, especially those of kinship, and traditional ideals of patriarchal family authority. In nations pervaded by clannism, government is coopted for purely factional purposes and the state, conceived on the model of the patriarchal family, treats citizens not as autonomous actors but rather as troublesome dependents to be managed.” – the Arab Development Report.

    We are different. Our ancestry is that of egalitarian warriors not extended familial hierarchy.

    We were different from the start.

    And that difference: the need to debate between peers is the origin of reason, science, and all else that we have used to dig humanity out of ignorance and poverty.

    Kicking and screaming, all the while.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 04:03:00 UTC

  • BY THE STATE, TOM WOODS’ NULLIFICATION, MARK LEVIN’S RESTORATION, SECESSION, OR

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00740KVN0/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkCONQUEST BY THE STATE, TOM WOODS’ NULLIFICATION, MARK LEVIN’S RESTORATION, SECESSION, OR COMMON VIOLENCE.

    Choose one or have it chosen for you.

    While nullification is the cheapest solution and violence the most expensive, I’m not personally partial to non violence so Nullification, Restoration, Secession, or violent Revolution are all acceptable alternatives to conquest, culture-cide, and genocide. ;).

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00740KVN0

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1451606273/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/190-1332324-1194528?keywords=liberty%20amendments&qid=1376569733&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 03:45:00 UTC

  • WHAT HAVE WE DONE…. “This perspective on the Revolution has particular signifi

    WHAT HAVE WE DONE….

    “This perspective on the Revolution has particular significance in the case of the aristocratic liberals because for them France, not England was the paradigmatic case for modern history. To most nineteenth-century European liberals, England and English history were the pattern for modern development. But to the aristocratic liberals, the pattern was france, and their understanding of the French Revolution must be seen in this light.England was the Other, placed opposite the common Continental destiny. Continually out of phase with the rest of Europe, sometimes running ahead and sometimes lagging behind.” – Aristocratic Liberalism p11.

    “…all of Europe was seized with a hatred of itself, of its own time, of its own history: “Theory taught that tradition was worthless and that the oldest things were useless and rubbish.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 15:20:00 UTC

  • IN JOURNALISM; A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION (The Common Law) Craig WIlly, a blogger

    http://www.craigwilly.info/2013/08/14/can-media-tell-the-truth-on-new-vs-traditional-journalism/TRUTH IN JOURNALISM; A PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION

    (The Common Law)

    Craig WIlly, a blogger who I follow who writes honestly about EU affairs, will leave blogging for a position as a reporter with a financial new service in Germany.

    In his column he states the obvious: that there is no such thing as journalism, only opinion writing. “Opinion Journalism”. He uses a quote from Julian Assange to justify the journalistic economy: It is the clashing of these voices together that reveals the truth about the world as a whole”. Just like any other form of capitalism.

    But I would argue, given the statements below, that if you don’t get paid for it, it’s an opinion. But if you sell it, it’s a product. And if you sell a product, you must warrantee it. And journalists, or at least media providers, should be held accountable for the quality of their products.

    Our courts made a vast mistake undermining traditional common law on libel and slander. And we worsen that mistake with not requiring warrantee on the products of reporters. If products must come to market with warrantee, then fewer of them will come, but they will be of much higher quality.

    It should be noted that the government gives corporations the permission to pollute, and journalists the permission to lie, slander and commit fraud, by revoking your right of standing in the court of law, as a consumer of a good that was purchased on the market.

    So while I agree with Craig’s argument, I do not agree that the market without the courts, is a sufficient guarantee of public good. Not even market anarchists make this argument. Nor do I agree that the market for information is a sufficient guarantee of public good without the protection of the courts in enforcing warrantee on the quality of the product that we consume. Nor do I agree that the market for academic knowledge without the courts is a sufficient guarantee of public good.

    Personally, I’d like to take Dan Rather to court for all the damage he did to America.

    QUOTE:

    “Today, years later, I’ve come to be more aware than ever that media are generally not in a particularly good position to tell the truth. There are too many structural problems:

    The journalist (or media) is often an amateur-generalist who writes about subjects about which he has no expertise. (How many Yugoslavia-experts were there in Western media in the 1990s? How many Islam experts after 9/11? How many Germany experts since the euro crisis?)

    1) The journalist has to write to very short time constraints, before the “fog of war” clears.

    2) The traditional (print or TV) journalist has to simplify according to the constraints of column size and screen time (“concision”).

    3) The journalist panders to the powerful in order to preserve “access.”

    4) The journalist panders to his audience’s prejudices in order to acquire and keep readers.

    5) The journalist engages in sensationalism to get “hits.”

    6) The journalist must respect the interests of his paymasters (corporate or government owners, subsidizers, advertisers, subscribers…).

    7) “The journalist” is defined here as he who lives by his writing, each of these points could be extended to media in general.

    The point here is all media, all journalists, have necessary and structural conflicts of interest that potentially compromise and bias the truthfulness of their writing.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 13:18:00 UTC

  • CLOWN: EVIDENCE OF A STATE RELIGION? Now, we have a long history of ridiculing o

    CLOWN: EVIDENCE OF A STATE RELIGION?

    Now, we have a long history of ridiculing our officials. I have spent halloween dressed as both Reagan and Clinton – neither of them very charitable representations.

    So a clown gets up and plays the president. Or Hollywood puts out a discrediting film using prominent left wing actors about Reagan or the iron lady.

    We burn effigies of Bush, and copies of the flag.

    Funny enough that the progressive reaction to a clown wearing an Obama mask at a rodeo produces the same intensity of reaction that a cartoon of mohammed did from fundamentalist muslims.

    American libertarians and conservatives must understand that the philosophical framework we call postmodernism, is a FUNDAMENTALIST religion far more dangerous than islam. Far more dangerous than socialism or communism.

    Christianity had churches against the nobility. Communism had the state against the nobility and the capitalists. Socialism had universities and argued that it was a science – until it was demonstrated in theory and practice that it was not.

    But universities did not give up upon the failure of their new religion. They invented postmodernism.

    We see postmodernism as political correctness. As feminism that did not grant equal rights, but extraordinary privileged. As absurd liberal logic: Equality as a fact rather than a necessity of just law. Diversity as a good rather than a temporary tolerance until people assimilate . Merit as an obscurity for invisible inexplicable but assumed corruption. Support for the unfortunate as an obligation to subsidize poor judgement.

    That the separation of church and state must equally apply to universities and their religion of postmodernism, as it did to our cathedrals and christianity.

    Universities, like advertising agencies and consumer brands have the incentives to mislead people, whether customers or citizens. To sell them lies, dreams and fantasies. And since they are unaccountable there is


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 11:39:00 UTC

  • RISING ANTI-CAPLANISM – THE MOVEMENT AGAINST OPEN BORDERS I go back and forth on

    RISING ANTI-CAPLANISM – THE MOVEMENT AGAINST OPEN BORDERS

    I go back and forth on Brian Caplan. I agree on almost everything is but his stand on immigration and his argument against calculation getting blown out of proportion by giving higher priority to incentives. That’s silly. They’re two sides of the same coin, and neither has meaning without the other. He had an opportunity to clarify an issue and just clouded it. And that’s been a problem for me and the movement.

    There is a bit of an anti-Caplan movement building in the conservative intellectual community. Which, I think is only driven by his immigration stance.

    I can’t expect him to think differently. Any more than I can be expected to disavow my ancestors.

    But it’s a preference, not a truth.

    Open immigration is incompatible with the preservation of individual, several, private property rights.

    Period. We didn’t know that. Now we do.

    Conservatives didn’t know that homosexuality was genetic and in-utero, not a choice. But they stick to their position out of religious conviction, even when they know the rational reasoning.

    Libertarians stick to the fantasy that property was a moral preference, rather than a reflection of a reproductive strategy, that is in opposition to the desires of the majority of people on the planet.

    It’s illogical to hold to a position when the evidence is contrary to your beliefs.

    Open borders must require symmetrical respect for property rights. And open borders and democracy are a direct opposition to property rights.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 09:27:00 UTC

  • IF DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SQUASHING PUBLIC OPINION” We can’t improve, repair, o

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QT8Q-Hcll0″WHAT IF DEMOCRACY IS A MEANS OF SQUASHING PUBLIC OPINION”

    We can’t improve, repair, or replace government, if you think that democracy is a means for change, rather than a means of preventing change.

    My definition of libertarian is anyone who advances liberty.

    So that positioning out of the way, If you eliminated the advocacy of Ron Paul from this video, so that it would be entirely neutral, it would be the most accurate condemnation of american government that a talking-head has made on-air.

    It’s worthy of one of the great orators of our past.

    And I can’t recommend it enough.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-15 08:48:00 UTC