Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • THE EVOLUTION OF THE TERM “GENTLEMAN” The most basic class distinctions in the M

    THE EVOLUTION OF THE TERM “GENTLEMAN”

    The most basic class distinctions in the Middle Ages were between the nobiles, i.e., the tenants in chivalry, such as earls, barons, knights, esquires, the free ignobiles such as the citizens and burgesses, and franklins, and the unfree peasantry including villeins and serfs.

    In its original meaning, “gentleman” denoted a man of the lowest rank of the English gentry, standing below an esquire and above a yeoman.

    This category included the younger sons of the younger sons of peers and the younger sons of baronets, knights, and esquires in perpetual succession, and thus the term captures the common denominator of gentility (and often armigerousness) shared by both constituents of the English aristocracy: the peerage and the gentry. In this sense, the word equates with the French gentilhomme (“nobleman”), which latter term has been, in Great Britain, long confined to the peerage;

    Even as late as 1400, the word gentleman still only had the descriptive sense of generosus and could not be used as denoting the title of a class. Yet after 1413, we find it increasingly so used, and the list of landowners in 1431, printed in Feudal Aids, contains, besides knights, esquires, yeomen and husbandmen (i.e. householders), a fair number who are classed as “gentilman”.

    The British Empire begins in the 1580’s.

    The clear distinction between the aristocratic and laboring classes was pervasive. After 1600 Gentlemen would not challenge men of lower status to a duel, and a challenge to (or excuse for) a duel was based on some perceived public insult to the challenger’s sense of his honour as a gentleman.

    The industrial revolution starts in 1790.

    In (1815), the encyclopedia britannica states: “a gentleman is one, who without any title, bears a coat of arms, or whose ancestors have been freemen.”

    The Reform Acts were implemented (1832): the British equivalent of Jerrymandering was revised and the allocation of seats in parliament to boroughs (the equivalent of US counties) were adjusted. The qualification as property holder adjusted for inflation, and the electorate expanded by as much 50% – although universal enfranchisement was not yet adopted.

    As prosperity expanded, and the middle class with it, the designation came to include a man with an income derived from property, a legacy or some other source, and was thus independently wealthy and did not need to work.

    Then in (1845) we see “in its extended sense, a gentleman is accorded to all above the rank of yeomen.”

    So the title expands to cover any well-educated man of good family and distinction, analogous to the Latin generosus (its usual translation in English-Latin documents, although nobilis is found throughout pre-Reformation papal correspondence).

    And by (1856), “in its most extended sense, by courtesy this title is generally accorded to all persons above the rank of common tradesmen when their manners are indicative of a certain amount of refinement and intelligence.”

    The middle classes were successfully enfranchised; and the word gentleman came in common use to signify not a distinction of blood, but a distinction of position, education and manners.

    The term no longer required good birth or the right to bear arms, but the capacity to mingle on equal terms in good society.

    Signaling. 🙂

    In Propertarianism, a gentleman is one who pays for the cost of the commons by not only contributing in his manners, but by policing the rest of society as any good nobleman would. And as such one who does not insure the truth, the normative, institutional, and physical commons, is not a gentleman. And anyone who does so is one.

    So my perception of gentleman is simply the smallest unit of nobility: a man with nothing but his actions to justify his nobility.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-12 04:27:00 UTC

  • MORE ON GEOGRAPHIC IGNORANCE Interesting offline conversation about american ign

    MORE ON GEOGRAPHIC IGNORANCE

    Interesting offline conversation about american ignorance. Yes, we are ignorant. But ignorance is a geographic necessity. Yes we are ignorant of our policies. But then, we have the best disinformation system in the world making the truth opaque to us. Yes we are ignorant, because we have a tragic education system that values eliminating the problem of diversity that preserves the political system over the education of a labor force capable of competing in a post-european world.

    Our geographic ignorance is forgivable – it’s not valuable. Our policy ignorance is something that should make us angry – it is valuable. Our educational ignorance is something that should cause us to revolt – it’s necessary for our survival.

    What we have that no one else has is total saturation in entrepreneurship, innovation, the scientific method, and heroism.

    This is enough to allow the upper classes to compete against the rest of the world, but it is not enough to allow our middle forces and labor forces to compete against the rest of the world.

    We need better education or we need to start impaling everyone in the administration of public education on spikes until we run out of bodies. I’ve been to both the Northwest and Canada. We’re never gonna run out of spikes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 11:41:00 UTC

  • BRITISH FLIGHTS OF FANCY —More than 50 percent of Britons believe that polygam

    BRITISH FLIGHTS OF FANCY

    —More than 50 percent of Britons believe that polygamy is legal in the United States; in fact, it is illegal in all 50 states. Almost one-third of Britons believe that Americans who have not paid their hospital fees or insurance premiums are not entitled to emergency medical care; in fact, such treatment must be provided by law.

    Seventy percent of Britons think the United States has done a worse job than the European Union in reducing carbon emissions since 2000; in fact, America’s rate of growth of carbon emissions has decreased by almost ten percent since 2000, while that of the EU has increased by 2.3 percent.

    Eighty percent of Britons believe that “from 1973 to 1990, the United States sold Saddam Hussein more than a quarter of his weapons.” In fact, the United States sold just 0.46 percent of Saddam’s arsenal to him; Russia, France, and China supplied 57 percent, 13 percent, and 12 percent, respectively.

    The majority of Britons believe that since the Second World War, the United States has more often sided with non-Muslims than with Muslims. In fact, in 11 out of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with Muslims and/or Arabs.

    Indeed, a new opinion poll finds that British attitudes towards the United States are governed by ignorance of the facts on key issues such as crime, health care, and foreign policy. The survey was commissioned by America in the World, a London-based group that hopes to push back against rampant anti-Americanism in the United Kingdom by dispelling widely held myths about the United States.—-

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:52:00 UTC

  • THE FRENCH LOVE MCDONALDS!! —The French, of course, are famous for heaping sco

    THE FRENCH LOVE MCDONALDS!!

    —The French, of course, are famous for heaping scorn on American fast food. But France’s dirty little culinary secret is that one out of every two French people visit McDonald’s at least once a year. In fact, McDonald’s is so popular in France that the country is now McDonald’s second-biggest moneymaker in the world after the United States. (McDonald’s success is spreading throughout the rest of Europe, too, where sales growth is outpacing that in America. McDonald’s is now one of the biggest private-sector employers on the continent, with a workforce of some 300,000.)—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-11 10:51:00 UTC

  • Why Are Americans So Proud Of Their History When The Usa Has A Shorter History Compared To Some Other Countries In The World?

    (a) Because we invented a new form of culture: a purely commercial one, absent of hierarchy.
    (b) Because we invented a new form of constitution and government by adapting the British to this new commercial culture.
    (c) Because we did not fall to the european suicide by internecine warfare (even if the brits suckered us into both world wars).
    (c) Because we are disproportionately productive compared to the rest of the world.
    (d) Because of our disproportionate productivity and size, we have disproportionate wealth and global influence.
    (e) Because we used our wealth and influence to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of colonialism, out of the world war, out of socialism and communism, and right now we’re trying to drag what’s left out of ignorance and mysticism and poverty.

    Now, personally I’m pretty anti-american for an american, because I feel that our conquest of Europe has only exacerbated western (germanic) suicide, by allowing europeans to develop an absurd, immoral, unscientific, and unsustainable economy and political system that can only be perpetuated through suicide by immigration of third world peoples unable to adapt to northern european the high trust nuclear family, truth telling, suppression of free riding, and protestant work ethic.

    Unfortunately, americans aspire to commit the same suicide.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-so-proud-of-their-history-when-the-USA-has-a-shorter-history-compared-to-some-other-countries-in-the-world

  • Why Are Americans So Proud Of Their History When The Usa Has A Shorter History Compared To Some Other Countries In The World?

    (a) Because we invented a new form of culture: a purely commercial one, absent of hierarchy.
    (b) Because we invented a new form of constitution and government by adapting the British to this new commercial culture.
    (c) Because we did not fall to the european suicide by internecine warfare (even if the brits suckered us into both world wars).
    (c) Because we are disproportionately productive compared to the rest of the world.
    (d) Because of our disproportionate productivity and size, we have disproportionate wealth and global influence.
    (e) Because we used our wealth and influence to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of colonialism, out of the world war, out of socialism and communism, and right now we’re trying to drag what’s left out of ignorance and mysticism and poverty.

    Now, personally I’m pretty anti-american for an american, because I feel that our conquest of Europe has only exacerbated western (germanic) suicide, by allowing europeans to develop an absurd, immoral, unscientific, and unsustainable economy and political system that can only be perpetuated through suicide by immigration of third world peoples unable to adapt to northern european the high trust nuclear family, truth telling, suppression of free riding, and protestant work ethic.

    Unfortunately, americans aspire to commit the same suicide.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Americans-so-proud-of-their-history-when-the-USA-has-a-shorter-history-compared-to-some-other-countries-in-the-world

  • The Demographics of Gun Ownership

    A CORRELATIVE ANSWER, THEN THE CAUSAL ANSWER

    The Correlative Answer: Part 1: Social Structure
    Northern Europeans above the Hanjal Line (The North Sea Peoples who successfully out-bred) sometimes referred to as the Protestant Peoples) retain an ancient set of traditions requiring all men to obtain legitimacy and honor (equal status) through participation in the militia, and the purpose of the militia is to deny all men power over all other men. This is preserved most strongly in the anglos dutch and less so in the germans, who were anglicized.

    The Causal Answer: Part 2 Tradition
    There are a small number of underlying heroic traditions that carry the western Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarian (enfranchisement to all who fight) tradition – and that tradition is the cause of the rapid rate of western development compared to all other civilizations, both in the ancient, and modern eras. These are:
    1) Heroism (purchase of enfranchisement and status through sacrifice)
    2) All property is private (all property is earned)
    3) Every man is his own legislator over his domain.
    4) The common law and independent judiciary permit the resolution of differences between equals without appeal to authority.
    5) The rule of law, the common law (organic law, natural law) applies to all men equally. 
    6) Hierarchy is necessary for decision making in war, the resolution of conflicts, and for the suppression of free riding.

    The value in this structure is that the common law can evolve with the first judicial ruling, and therefore both transaction cost and risk are reduced, and the chance of free riding, parasitism, fraud and predation are eliminated before they can be institutionalized. The market for law suppresses parasitism as fast as innovations in parasitism are created. In turn, innovation in products, services and ideas can progress with the least resistance from predators. Costs: The consequence for the underclasses is that while they benefit from the rapid innovation, they are more aware of the difference between those who are less productive and those who are are more so.

    The Causal Answer: Part 3 : Incentives
    As population destiny increases, all effects increase by approximately 20% for every doubling of the population. 
    The incentives for people in rural areas where all men bear a high cost of policing the commons, is more restrictive than the incentives for people in urban areas where few bear the cost of policing the commons.

    In general, people in areas of dense population discount the cost of policing commons and norms because opportunity, transaction and policing costs are lower.

    The Causal Answer Part 4: Diversity.
    Diversity decreases trust, increases political divisiveness and decreases economic velocity. Urban areas can afford immigrating diversity. Rural areas cannot.

    It’s all rational really.

    WHAT IS HAPPENING
    The effort to expand ownership has been successful and once people have limited skill with, and ownership of guns, it tends to transfer like all traditions between families.

    The greater the effort to suppress gun ownership the greater the passion with which gun owners preserve the tradition.

    We have roughly tripled gun sales under this administration. Demographically the argument is over and the pro gun movement has won. (surprisingly)

    The supreme court has learned a tragic lesson from Roe v Wade: that the court should not solve social matters until they are first resolved by the states. That decision has nearly destroyed the court. “The Democratic Process Must Do Its Work” is the phrase we hear from the court.

    The general consensus is that we have a problem controlling mental illness, and urban poverty, and not a problem with firearms.

    So as far as I understand, the matter is settled for at least the next generation.

  • NEEDS The institutional needs of individuals, families and tribes at different l

    NEEDS

    The institutional needs of individuals, families and tribes at different levels of maturity, differ. We do not mature at the same rates (as individuals) and we have not matured at the same rates as tribes, nations and races. For the simple reason that we encountered different geographic pressures.

    I am not sure why this is so complicated. High attention parenting, high investment parenting and their opposites, produce different results. Western methods of child-raising are a trade off. But we are also born with different impulses, and we can measure them, and have measured them.

    Equal rights to life and property, do not require that we mature at identical rates.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 11:51:00 UTC

  • DEMOGRAPHICS OF GUN OWNERSHIP: A CORRELATIVE ANSWER, THEN THE CAUSAL ANSWER The

    DEMOGRAPHICS OF GUN OWNERSHIP: A CORRELATIVE ANSWER, THEN THE CAUSAL ANSWER

    The Correlative Answer: Part 1: Social Structure

    Northern Europeans above the Hanjal Line (The North Sea Peoples who successfully out-bred) sometimes referred to as the Protestant Peoples) retain an ancient set of traditions requiring all men to obtain legitimacy and honor (equal status) through participation in the militia, and the purpose of the militia is to deny all men power over all other men. This is preserved most strongly in the anglos dutch and less so in the germans, who were anglicized.

    The Causal Answer: Part 2 Tradition

    There are a small number of underlying heroic traditions that carry the western Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarian (enfranchisement to all who fight) tradition – and that tradition is the cause of the rapid rate of western development compared to all other civilizations, both in the ancient, and modern eras. These are:

    1) Heroism (purchase of enfranchisement and status through sacrifice)

    2) All property is private (all property is earned)

    3) Every man is his own legislator over his domain.

    4) The common law and independent judiciary permit the resolution of differences between equals without appeal to authority.

    5) The rule of law, the common law (organic law, natural law) applies to all men equally.

    6) Hierarchy is necessary for decision making in war, the resolution of conflicts, and for the suppression of free riding.

    The value in this structure is that the common law can evolve with the first judicial ruling, and therefore both transaction cost and risk are reduced, and the chance of free riding, parasitism, fraud and predation are eliminated before they can be institutionalized. The market for law suppresses parasitism as fast as innovations in parasitism are created. In turn, innovation in products, services and ideas can progress with the least resistance from predators. Costs: The consequence for the underclasses is that while they benefit from the rapid innovation, they are more aware of the difference between those who are less productive and those who are are more so.

    The Causal Answer: Part 3 : Incentives

    As population destiny increases, all effects increase by approximately 20% for every doubling of the population.

    The incentives for people in rural areas where all men bear a high cost of policing the commons, is more restrictive than the incentives for people in urban areas where few bear the cost of policing the commons.

    In general, people in areas of dense population discount the cost of policing commons and norms because opportunity, transaction and policing costs are lower.

    The Causal Answer Part 4: Diversity.

    Diversity decreases trust, increases political divisiveness and decreases economic velocity. Urban areas can afford immigrating diversity. Rural areas cannot.

    It’s all rational really.

    WHAT IS HAPPENING

    The effort to expand ownership has been successful and once people have limited skill with, and ownership of guns, it tends to transfer like all traditions between families.

    The greater the effort to suppress gun ownership the greater the passion with which gun owners preserve the tradition.

    We have roughly tripled gun sales under this administration. Demographically the argument is over and the pro gun movement has won. (surprisingly)

    The supreme court has learned a tragic lesson from Roe v Wade: that the court should not solve social matters until they are first resolved by the states. That decision has nearly destroyed the court. “The Democratic Process Must Do Its Work” is the phrase we hear from the court.

    The general consensus is that we have a problem controlling mental illness, and urban poverty, and not a problem with firearms.

    So as far as I understand, the matter is settled for at least the next generation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-10 11:23:00 UTC

  • MORE ON MY POSITION ON RACE (from elsewhere) Just maybe let me add this: there i

    MORE ON MY POSITION ON RACE

    (from elsewhere)

    Just maybe let me add this: there is no material difference between men. There is a material difference in how groups of men behave because there are material differences in the distributions between groups of men. I feel that evolution via mutation is less impactful than changes in who breeds at what rate. This means that man is very plastic in adaptation, always able to move forward into the cerebral or backward into the physical as necessary. The central problem of any society is the PERCENTAGE of individuals above 125/130 where ideas are created, and how much property is in their hands, and the nearest 20% of people that they influence. This is how institutions and organizations are formed. It is imperative that any group of people achieve the Pareto relationship between order and ability if one wants to exit tyranny. I do not believe there are material differences between people of similar abilities. I believe that there are material differences in the distribution of abilities. If you let your lower classes over-reproduce, you cannot accumulate wealth in the hands of meritocracy. I do not think this is particularly difficult or complex to understand. We are all families at different stages of maturity. I think that we should treat our families, extended families, distant relations, and other races as families who are at different levels of maturity, but that there is no meaningful difference otherwise. This is my position. Racism is stupid. Democracy makes it worse. All families can help other families however.I choose to help all families who wish to improve their lot without doing it at the expense of Others.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-08 09:05:00 UTC