Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • REGARDING WHITE MALES AND LIBERTARIANISM White males (the european, or perhaps g

    REGARDING WHITE MALES AND LIBERTARIANISM

    White males (the european, or perhaps germanic, race) seek status under the ancient indo-european proscription for heroism via competition. The west is unique for having produced this philosophy of aristocratic egalitarianism – inclusion in equalitarian leadership, and therefore obtaining the reward of property rights, by demonstrated heroism. And the high trust society of the west is the result of aristocratic egalitarianism (heroic achievement, demonstrated excellence, virtue).

    For most of history, and pre-history, males could achieve this only through combat. With the advent of manorialism, males could demonstrate their fitness through hard work. With the advent of chivalry males could demonstrate their heroic status by charitable service. With the advent of consumer capitalism, males could demonstrate their heroic fitness in commerce.

    Heroic achievemnet grants access to mates (we have a lof of data on this now that confirms this fact – to the point where we know how many dollars in income per inch of height under 5’10” you must earn to gain the same quality of attractive woman…. Really.) Women are as shallow about status as men are about physical attraction – and the data is the data.

    As such, white males are intuitively attracted to libertarianism if they see in libertarianism a means of pursuing traditional signals for mating, social status, and wealth.

    That libertarianism is a rigorous philospohy equalled in detail only by Marxism, and is articulated in economic language and analytical philosophy. It is accessible only to those people with both incentive to learn it, and the ability to understand it. This is why libertarianism is a minority white male philosophy. It is an aristocratic philosophy and difficult to access.

    Other cultures lack both the mythology and cultural values for heroism and egalitarianism Which is why other cultures also cannot produce the high trust society. And without the high trust society, the wealth necessary for redistribution (charity) is impossible to achieve at scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-27 03:57:00 UTC

  • What Are Some American (us) Ways That Cause People From Other Cultures To Find Them Hard To Work With?

    For whom are they hard to work with?

    We follow the Protestant Work Ethic. Tell the truth, the whole truth, up front, make a promise and stick to it regardless of change.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-American-US-ways-that-cause-people-from-other-cultures-to-find-them-hard-to-work-with

  • What Causes People To Become More Conservative Over Time?

    Interesting Answers.  Most of them unsupported or substantially wrong.

    Conservative is a reaction to the status quo.  The status quo in america is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the founding mythology of our country. This mythology contains the classical liberal, european aristocratic egalitarian view of man that we associate with the Protestant Ethic. The protestant ethical sensibilities are what ‘conservatives’ are ‘conservative’ about.

    The reason people become more conservative as they get older is that they have accumulated greater knowledge about the behavior of individuals in the real world.  Young people have experience with the ethic of the family and give undue weight to the consensus bias.   The market is the mature view of man, wherein we have dissimilar interests and goals and we can pursue those goals independently by cooperating on means within the market.  The family is the childlike view of mankind. It is naturally communal and communistic. It is so because a family has similar interests, similar means, and similar abilities.

    Single women and single mothers vote more heavily left than any other demographic group.  This changes if they stay married, at which point they skew conservative. If it were not for women voters, and specifically single women voters, we would never have had a liberal president, and it’s unlikely we would ever have had a liberal government.  FOr this reason, women are responsible for the left shift in america.   And the increase in single women and single mothers is the result of the feminist attack on the nuclear family as an economic institution.  Single women revert to their instinctual reproductive strategy: to bear children but to place responsibility for supporting them on the tribe.  The family is the smallest tribe possible. When the family is not present, women still pursue their reproductive strategy, and vote to place responsibility on the state (the tribe) for services.

    As we get older we understand the scarcity of good and services, and we understand the nature of human beings as more selfish and less communal.  The market system and the family compensate for these selfish properties of human being and create community by controlling the selfish behavior of human beings.

    That is why people become more conservative as they get older.

    https://www.quora.com/What-causes-people-to-become-more-conservative-over-time

  • IN A BAR. A GUY FROM COMPUWARE. HE TRIES TO START A FIGHT WITH ME. AND UNTIL TOD

    IN A BAR. A GUY FROM COMPUWARE. HE TRIES TO START A FIGHT WITH ME. AND UNTIL TODAY I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHY.

    Three years ago, or so, maybe four. I’m in a bar at a fashionable restaurant with some friends. And this drunk guy from two tables over comes up to me and says “do you remember me?” and sticks out his hand.

    Now, I never forget a face. Ever. I recognized his face. But I couldn’t place him. And honestly, I was just stumped. So, as usual, I shook his hand, and stalled for time while I tried to remember where I knew him from.

    He says “I know what you did”. Now, when a drunk guy says something like that to me, I gotta tell you that this particular farm boy’s first instinct is to hit as hard and as fast as I can – ’cause nothing good is likely to follow.

    However, I’m also with four guys, the place is packed, I’m a regular, and there are really good bouncers. Besides, even if he gets going I’m not sure he’s too threatening in his current state, and I’m not sure it’s clear yet to others that he’s begging for a fight – and I don’t like unnecessary imperial entanglements.

    I still can’t place the guy. Until he tells me he’s a salesman from Compuware, that we cancelled a deal with when the credit crash picked up steam. And so I get this confused look on my face – because I’m genuinely confused.

    Now, you know, you can abuse me all you want. I know who I am. I know how and why I make decisions and I’m ok with the decisions that I make. And god knows that I’m not exactly a nice negotiator – I’m ruthless about money. And I have a mercenary view of ethics in negotiations. But if you come after one of my partners, both of whom are virtuous to such a fault that I want to wring their necks at times, all bets are off, and so are all barriers.

    My partner Steven is about as level headed as god has made a human being. And he has told me, maybe a month or two earlier, that the Compuware software can’t do what we need. And that we’re going to have to back out of it. Not only can’t they do it but we’re starting to get really nervous about revenue and sales, and it’s expensive software. So we don’t want to be in a position where we have trouble paying for it either. So it’s just better right now if we make a few mods to our own code and suffer through the current crisis.

    So the next thing I say is that “Steven is the most honest man I know, and if he says it won’t do it, then it won’t do it, and that’s all I know, all I want to know, and all I need to know.”

    At which point he starts coming at me with F-bombs, and one of the guys he works with starts pulling him backwards away from me.

    I know I have got him now, and it’s evident to everyone in the bar that he’s loaded and violent, so I have moral authority to find his jaw if necessary. But his friends prevail, and drag him out of the place.

    Unfortunately, I never really understood why he was so pissed. I just discounted it out of hand as losing a commission and being drunk. But, this morning, sitting here, I realize that he thought we were playing them for information so that we could develop our internal software on our own. It never occurred to me before, and I feel stupid for not getting it.

    At least that makes sense. Of course, it’s not true. But then, that’s one of the problems with ethics and asymmetry of knowledge. It also one of the problems of assuming that you understand the motivations and incentives of others.

    Even if their software would have done the job (it wouldn’t) It would have been far cheaper to buy their software than to develop our software ourselves – that this is logically self evident is why it didn’t occur to me. But the cash flow impact of modifying our fragile and aged existing software ourselves albiet very slowly was less risky than trying to heavily modify an already expensive piece of software using external consultants, and the cash flow impact of a liability of that size on the balance sheet given that our bank had just failed, and our customers were spending less money.

    Unfortunately, had he talked to me as a gentleman, I would have explained this. But he talked to me as an impassioned drunk. And I never had the opportunity.

    I don’t so much mind if people dislike or are angry with me when I screw up. But it really bothers me when people dislike or are angry with me for things that I don’t do.

    We go back to Montaigne: In life it seems that we are disliked by people who blame us for accidents, but are forgiven or ignored by those whom we have done intentional injustice.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-26 02:54:00 UTC

  • DATA ON TRUST VS PACK INSTINCT? We have a lot of data describing the different l

    DATA ON TRUST VS PACK INSTINCT?

    We have a lot of data describing the different levels of trust between cultures. But does anyone know of any data that deals with the different levels of pack (group) instinct between cultures. Aboriginal Americans, and East Asians seem at the extreme. Turkic, semitic peoples, in the middle and Indo Europeans in the middle and africans at the low end.

    For example, we know that as babies, asians are more pliable, whites in the middle and africans at the lowest. That’s a pretty good data set, even if it’s certainly open to criticism.

    It’s all good to intuit this. But how can I test it? Any data anywhere?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-26 02:02:00 UTC

  • TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.) CAUTION I agree with the value of hegemony. And I ag

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemony(LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.)

    CAUTION

    I agree with the value of hegemony. And I agree that the developed world pays tribute to the USA by purchasing debt for petrodollars, which is then inflated away. And I agree that this is a beneificial system for all, since the USA enforces consumer capitalism worldwide – which while it is an unnatural system in human history, is a beneficial one.

    The following factors trouble me:

    1) the great divergence between the west and asia appears in no small part to be the result of the intellectual class attempting to find a solution to the thirty years war. And china perpetuated stagnation in exchange for stability.

    2) The USA is an international hegemon, and we may argue in favor of the aggregate value of that function. But Washington is arguably also a domestic empire engaged in the cultural occupation and oppression of the middle and south of the country by the coastal immigration centers.

    3) While we tend to think of states as neutral, the fact is that all states have been, and remain, some form of oligarchy supporting internationally dominant industries – in effect, extended corporations/. And wars between the small states of Europe were trivial by comparison to the wars conducted by the states. It is easy to forget, in this time, where states primarily function as insurers of last resort, and liquidity providers, that the purpose of banking and central credit was to finance war. Including Napoleon, The Civil War, the world wars and the cold war.

    As a political economist I have to argue that I am a ‘Stratforian’ in the sense that I understand the primacies of geography and demographics. And I also understand the economic value of hegemony as a reduction against trade friction. I’m just not certain that from those statements we can deduce that hegemony produces greater goods than the balance of power. In fact, I’m pretty sure that economic history suggests otherwise.

    I realize that Stratfor is a voice of reason, making an argument for stability. I realize that the problem of torn states cannot be solved peacefully without our hegemonic influence.

    I question however, that, especially given the fragility of the western civilization due to demographic and economic changes, that this hegemony will produce net ‘goods’. In fact, like Spengler, I’m pretty sure it won’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-25 13:28:00 UTC

  • BALACE OF POWERS, EMPIRE, AND HEGEMONY America is a domestic empire prosecuting

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemonyANARCHY, BALACE OF POWERS, EMPIRE, AND HEGEMONY

    America is a domestic empire prosecuting coastal tyranny, cultural war, and genocide against the agrarian interior, and America is an international hegemony in power largely because it is cheap and easy to have America in power. And america IS in power, because everyone else (largely) WANTS it to be. (Certain oil producing minorities which America prohibits from forming a cartel are the exception.)

    As I’ve stated before (and generated a lot of comments) Americans finance the military through the export of debt which is then inflated away. For this service, americans have a higher standard of living and gain preferential status in world trade negotiations, not the least of which is because the USA determines the terms by which world trade is conducted.

    I would argue, that it would be just fine with me if we separated out Washington DC as a separate ‘nation’, and let it fulfill the hegemonic duties that it does, while returning power to the regions or states so that we may persist our local cultures and preferences without the imposition of coastal tyranny.

    You can undermine a bureaucracy, or you can promote it. I’m of the opinion that promoting washington is easier than shutting it down. And the world will happily shut it down for us over time. Meanwhile each region of the country is free to trade and behave as it sees fit without the dictatorship of the coasts.

    Think about that a bit.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-25 07:18:00 UTC

  • “Group selection constrains surplus and spreads subsistence.” Aristocracy defeat

    “Group selection constrains surplus and spreads subsistence.”

    Aristocracy defeats group selection.

    I think I can reduce the western canon to that statement.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-25 01:34:00 UTC

  • BEAUTY AND EXCELLENCE Why are western academics afraid of Truth, Beauty, Excelle

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-eth/TRUTH, BEAUTY AND EXCELLENCE

    Why are western academics afraid of Truth, Beauty, Excellence? And god forbid, our martial virtues, and the aristocratic creation of civilization through conquest of the primitive.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-04-24 05:29:00 UTC

  • Is It Possible To Quantify Work Experience?

    In reality, no.  (We have been doing it for ten years.) 
    (a) skills are perishable
    (b) experience is not indicative of performance – perhaps error reduction, but not competitive performance.
    (c) rate of career advancement, educational institution (a filter), IQ and physical appearance are the best individual measures.

    We have used stack ranking and peer review and it is surprisingly effective.  Management is almost always wrong. Peers are the best determinant of value.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-quantify-work-experience