Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • Homogeneity increases all trust, diversity decreases all trust. As a general rul

    Homogeneity increases all trust, diversity decreases all trust. As a general rul

    Homogeneity increases all trust, diversity decreases all trust.
    As a general rule, the size and duration of the middle class determines the trust level because it is commercial society that incentivizes it. https://t.co/5ZMiw6CiBv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 18:10:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973984816294133760

    Reply addressees: @sonshi_com @rockyandmayur

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973976891949494273

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973976891949494273

  • “So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the

    –“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’. Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible. Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them. As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did. All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating. That’s just how it is. So, no. All peoples can transcend.

  • “So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the

    –“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool)

    I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’.

    Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible.

    Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them.

    As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did.

    All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating.

    That’s just how it is.

    So, no. All peoples can transcend.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 12:10:00 UTC

  • “So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the

    –“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’. Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible. Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them. As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did. All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating. That’s just how it is. So, no. All peoples can transcend.

  • What we can learn from Economics, Weber, Pareto, Fukuyama, Macdonald and myself,

    What we can learn from Economics, Weber, Pareto, Fukuyama, Macdonald and myself, is that without explaining the competition we live under we merely justify (make excuses) and moralize. When in fact all groups compete by genetic, normative, institutional, and cultural means.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 23:35:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973704246402088960

    Reply addressees: @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973703310032211968

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit Where we differ is that I have explained precisely how it was done, where MacDonald (admittedly) merely suggested it was genetic, I’ve addressed how it is both genetic, cultural, and a particular verbal technology this time using pseudoscience rather than theology or pilpul.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973703310032211968

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit Where we differ is that I have explained precisely how it was done, where MacDonald (admittedly) merely suggested it was genetic, I’ve addressed how it is both genetic, cultural, and a particular verbal technology this time using pseudoscience rather than theology or pilpul.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973703310032211968

  • And the principle value of that work has been to understand our own strategy and

    And the principle value of that work has been to understand our own strategy and the strategies of all other peoples, so that we can protect ourselves from future Astrologies, Numerologies, theologies, rationalisms, and pseudosciences. And by the same means used in science.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 23:33:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973703750379622400

    Reply addressees: @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973703310032211968

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit Where we differ is that I have explained precisely how it was done, where MacDonald (admittedly) merely suggested it was genetic, I’ve addressed how it is both genetic, cultural, and a particular verbal technology this time using pseudoscience rather than theology or pilpul.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973703310032211968

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit Where we differ is that I have explained precisely how it was done, where MacDonald (admittedly) merely suggested it was genetic, I’ve addressed how it is both genetic, cultural, and a particular verbal technology this time using pseudoscience rather than theology or pilpul.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973703310032211968

  • Where we differ is that I have explained precisely how it was done, where MacDon

    Where we differ is that I have explained precisely how it was done, where MacDonald (admittedly) merely suggested it was genetic, I’ve addressed how it is both genetic, cultural, and a particular verbal technology this time using pseudoscience rather than theology or pilpul.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 23:32:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973703310032211968

    Reply addressees: @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973702810016665600

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit The only reason the Jewish “counter enlightenment’ matters more than the previous (all of which have led to conflicts) is that we are exiting it now, and have been since sometime around 1990 – and we have been locally influenced whereas previous events have been at arms length.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973702810016665600

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit The only reason the Jewish “counter enlightenment’ matters more than the previous (all of which have led to conflicts) is that we are exiting it now, and have been since sometime around 1990 – and we have been locally influenced whereas previous events have been at arms length.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973702810016665600

  • The only reason the Jewish “counter enlightenment’ matters more than the previou

    The only reason the Jewish “counter enlightenment’ matters more than the previous (all of which have led to conflicts) is that we are exiting it now, and have been since sometime around 1990 – and we have been locally influenced whereas previous events have been at arms length.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 23:30:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973702810016665600

    Reply addressees: @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973702103100248064

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas I was unaware of Macdonald until 2012 and came to precisely the same conclusions. The only difference was that I was trying to understand western group evolutionary strategy, and why it was unarticulated in a canon other than our common law. Fukuyama partly satisfies it. @TOOEdit

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973702103100248064

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas I was unaware of Macdonald until 2012 and came to precisely the same conclusions. The only difference was that I was trying to understand western group evolutionary strategy, and why it was unarticulated in a canon other than our common law. Fukuyama partly satisfies it. @TOOEdit

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973702103100248064

  • I was unaware of Macdonald until 2012 and came to precisely the same conclusions

    I was unaware of Macdonald until 2012 and came to precisely the same conclusions. The only difference was that I was trying to understand western group evolutionary strategy, and why it was unarticulated in a canon other than our common law. Fukuyama partly satisfies it. @TOOEdit

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 23:27:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973702103100248064

    Reply addressees: @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973701230169067522

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas Most of the time I’ve torn apart the author so heavily by the first 1500 words that continuation is pointless. In this case just the first three sentences are … less than amateurish. Macdonad’s only weakness was in specializing in one stategy rather than comparative strategies

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973701230169067522

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas Most of the time I’ve torn apart the author so heavily by the first 1500 words that continuation is pointless. In this case just the first three sentences are … less than amateurish. Macdonad’s only weakness was in specializing in one stategy rather than comparative strategies

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973701230169067522

  • And now that I think of it, Kissinger’s book probably makes two points (one of w

    And now that I think of it, Kissinger’s book probably makes two points (one of which I’ve stated here), and is probably the most thoughtful work other than Fukuyama’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 19:27:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973641609165377537

    Reply addressees: @Sonshi_com

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973629656606928896

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973629656606928896