Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • It’s because the IQ increase doesn’t come from genetic origins or jewish religio

    It’s because the IQ increase doesn’t come from genetic origins or jewish religion, but from european admixture, and using judiasm and separatism, computational specialization, and aggressive upward redistribution of reproduction. The difference between north european cognitive elites (Tories) at 113 and european jews at 112 isn’t meaningful. What’s meaningful is that european jews produce twice as many outliers over 140? Why? The same cause that produces the range of neurological diseases in the Ashkenazi produces increased development of specific neurons and white matter. So the point I want to make in this post and the others I’m working on, is that there are limits to each biological channel humans have taken advantage of in order to develop our hyper adaptability. While there is probably some limit to human cognitive ability, and it’s probably what we consider in the 200’s or 300’s ( Terrance Tao is probably 220-230 and has no apparent defects (like say Chomsky)). His development is due to neotenic excellence we see in east Asia, and not to mutation (as we see in the Ashkenazim). In other words, Europeans have developed sufficient neoteny for cognitive excellence and adapted neotenic signaling without sexual neoteny (like east Asians). Europeans have cut the bottom, and increased metabolic ability, more than developed mutations. East Asians are demonstrating the value of neoteny at the cost of sexual expression (with obvious consequences we don’t talk about). So what’s left? isolating cognitive neoteny (developmental extension of early neurological development) and improving our means of computation (system of measurement and communication).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-25 00:07:00 UTC

  • I know genetics have solved the Anthony-Renfrew debate, but any half-decent econ

    I know genetics have solved the Anthony-Renfrew debate, but any half-decent economist would have explained rather easily that IE had to evolve on the Eurasian Steppe, not in Anatolia. Or as Mainer’s say “Ya c’-hn’t get they-yah (evolve that) from hee-yah.” Always despised Renfrew as an anti aryanist for ideological reasons. Honestly, steppe life must have been pretty cool. In some ways, it still is.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 13:42:00 UTC

  • Well, since as far as I know, we don’t have any known hittite dna we don’t know

    Well, since as far as I know, we don’t have any known hittite dna we don’t know that. The AFAIK Armenians are iranic peoples (southern to eastern), not europeans (Northern-to-western).

    Everything I know of says that the hittites survivors moved south into the levant and eventually outbred and are lost. It’s more correct to say that the lebanese, georgians, armenians, kurds, iranians, are the closest we can claim to indigenous people of the region and the hitties were a conquering minority of european invaders whose arrival created a dispersal (mass migration) out of anatolia.

    The marsh arabs (semites) probably arrived from the southern route via the arabian peninsula, red sea, and persian gulf rather than eastern route from the indus river back across the iranian plain and into the cuacuses.

    The indo european langauge evolves (as I undersetand it) from these proto-iranic people and the steppe people cooperating-competing with larger herds made possible by the invention of animal-drawn carts (wagons->chariots) – yurts on wheels – that allowed them to take supplies with them onto the steppe. They developed lactose tolerance into adulthood by substituting fresh water consmption for milk consumption, and gaining the 40% more calories from that than traditional food sources by doing so.

    Whatever the relationship, the grops shared a language and culture but still separated and behavied differently as they expanded iranic-east into india (repeating the iranic agrarian invasion in india of 4000 bc, and european-west (repeating the agrarian invasion of europe in 7000 bc.)

    The metal-economy in the ancient world was much like the oil economy in the modern world. Food was the subsistence economy. Metal made states and armies possible. States and armies made professionals possible. Professionals made invention possible, and so on.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 13:23:00 UTC

  • A REPEAT OF HISTORY —“Curt: Who were the “Sea People”?— Ancestral aryans spr

    A REPEAT OF HISTORY

    —“Curt: Who were the “Sea People”?—

    Ancestral aryans spread across europe. The group that spread into anatolia were the Hittites. They rose to power about equal to the egyptians and the mesopotamians. But the hittites overplayed their hand and like today’s Turks) sought westward expansion.

    The various people of the north mediterranean allied and took advantage of it, and destroyed them. And they found it so rewarding they took out everyone in the levant. But subsequently they overplayed their conquest-hand, and like the Romans ‘ran out of other peoples’ civilizatoins to raid and the socialists (ran out of other peoples money to spend).

    This raiding resulted in the bronze age collapse, and the first (recorded) dark age. Every civlization in the east mediterranean disappeard, with a weak mesopotamia and egypt the only surviving civs.

    While mesopotamia eventually recovered, egypt only survived and never regained her previous glory. The hittites were exterminated, as were the Minoans and every other peole along the eastern med coast. The greeks even lost writing. and the story of the trojan war is, like king arthur, a story developed during those dark ages that eventually evolved into the ancient world’s equivalent of the bible.

    The ‘age of transformatino’ or what we see as ‘the great flowering of civiization and the beginning of our religious traditions’ occurs (just like the enlightenment) as they came out of that dark age. Taht’s why so much happens from 800-300bc. Just like so much happens in europe from 1400 to 1900 ad.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 12:42:00 UTC

  • The most useful thing is to reform your thinking: historians wrote from a time f

    The most useful thing is to reform your thinking: historians wrote from a time frame. But in realistic terms, humans spread lightning fast, adapted lightning-fast, started speciating lightinng fast, and re-hybridized lightning fast. And it appears that it’s larely due to technological innovation on one hand and selection for adaptability (intelligence) on the other.

    During this entire time, migration and trade existed and was interesting and it was profitable. Because trade is always mre profitable than production. It’s just a far higher opportunity cost.

    Agrarianism wasn’t particularly good for intelligence, but it freed up the intelligent folks to work on intelligent things.

    We have, with the industrial revolution, freed up not so intelligent folks to work on unintelligent things. 😉

    Island 120’s.

    Given that I undrstand consiousness as a (thin) tool life evolved for the purpose of creating returns on social cooperation (envisioning otehrs minds), I tend to take not only emotions, but consiousness out of the process of analysis entirely, and see man as a trial and error calculator exploiting every possible opportnity for caloric returns.

    mandelbrots fractals, in a vast game of life.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 12:26:00 UTC

  • THE THREE LITTLE BEARS AND EUROPEAN GENETIC PORRIDGE I don’t understand the ques

    THE THREE LITTLE BEARS AND EUROPEAN GENETIC PORRIDGE

    I don’t understand the question. Europoids are the result of ice age endurance by hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers, were then nearly replaced by Neolithic farmers. Neolithic farmers by steppe herders. We are a combination of all three, driven by male selection. (Women make nests and stay, young men expand the radius – capturing territory and women).

    Sometime around 43,000 BC, the ancestors of the Early European Farmers (EEF) split from Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs), and again appear to have split from Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers (CHGs) around 23,000 BC. Around 20,000 bc the glaciers stop growing.

    This produced a north-south cline we still see today from the very white north of Russia to the caucuses, from the caucuses to the not so white south of the Levant, to the not white people of southern Saudi Arabia.

    Similarly, around 24,000 bc we see the evolution of the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who rapidly expand and disappear westward into the hunter-gatherers, and eastward into what would become the Siberian-Americans.(there are no native americans. And the second wave of Siberians were more asiatic and nearly exterminated the first wave, in a cline north to south.).

    The East Asian data is slowly accumulating, but they are almost as isolated by their mountains deserts, cold, and ocians, as are the africans by the desert and oceans, so they arrive from the south, and they saw less admixture with only three events, the last one being tiny. (we dont know where their features came from – or at least I ‘m not willing to commit to any of the theories). So the agrarian expansion combined with the Han expansion (which is continuing in tibet and mongolia, and threatens Vietnam), continues. Make no mistake that the chinese are the most successful empire in history, producing the most forcible integration in history. And they do it without religion (lies). They do it with burueacratic management and time.

    The chessboard is set by the retreat of the glaciers. all these populations are somewhat distinct. As far as I know proto-populations in europe, levant, iran, and north Eurasia are as different as Europeans and Asians are today.

    By 10,000 bc the ice age is over, and the various floods result. Very shortly thereafter the domestication of animals (pigs and sheep), and very quickly the agrarian revolution begins. ~8000bc.

    Today’s populations are the result of two rapid expansions that demonstrate technology is more influential than natural selection: the agrarian expansions in Eurasia and China, followed by the IE expansion in Eurasia.

    These two expansions homogenized by hybridization (racialized) what had been a far higher number of racially distinct human groups.

    What I find interesting is that the favorable traits: Height, Light Skin, Blue Eyes, Blonde Hair, Sociability, Agency, Milk, and Grain tolerance end up in Europeans thus maintaining medium neoteny without sexual neoteny as in east Asia. Despite the fact that these traits evolved in different places in different groups.

    This is one of the key insights I’ve had.

    East Asians overplayed neoteny. Africans, Austronesians (impulsivity) and Semites underplayed neoteny (aggression). Europeans collected highly desirable features abandoning primitive rapid maturity, deep morphology, and lack of agency (Africa) without sacrificing reproductive desirability (east Asians), or carrying reproductive undesirability to extremes (Australians).

    In other words, Europeans selected for symbolic neoteny without significant suppression of sexual maturity. Thus creating a balance between impulsive and rapidly maturing Africans, and calm slowly maturing east Asians.

    It’s like the three little bears: “this one is just right”.

    But while those factors produce a sexual market value, with the sweet spots in Indian brahmins and northern Europeans along the west to east cline, the quality of life of a people is largely produced NOT by those features, by CLASS selection. In other words: domestication (neoteny). So neoteny can be achieved by any of the races and subraces with time – not much time really. A few centuries at most.

    If the group has the will for it.

    “Tech beats genes.” Physical, political-social, and conceptual-informational.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 12:17:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER ANTI-WHITE MYTH BITES THE DUST: –“Europeans were dark-skinned until 8,0

    ANOTHER ANTI-WHITE MYTH BITES THE DUST:

    –“Europeans were dark-skinned until 8,000 years ago: Pale complexions were brought to Europe from the Near East, study claims”—

    Another lie by pilpul.

    (a) Primates are white. Proto-humans developed dark skin when hair (fur) thinned to allow us greater heat dissipation. Black skin is an adaptation. And it varies all over africa. When we spread out of heavy-uv climates, wore clothes and needed vitamin D, we started losing that dark skin adaptation. The ‘out of africa region’ of Africa (Ethiopia, Yemen) started losing it too because of back migration from Eurasia.

    (b) People of the middle east are largely basal eurasian – the first people out of Africa. They have no north Eurasian ancestry.

    (c) European post-glacial hunter-gatherers have little to do with modern Europeans. Those people are extinct. They lived in Europe. Europeans carry some of their genes, from having killed the men and enslaved and reproduced with the women.

    (d) Those peoples living in SOUTHERN Europe 8,000 years ago (western, Scandinavian, and eastern hunter-gathers) were already admixed with ANE – Ancient North Eurasians (whites) to some degree. So they had ‘lightness’.

    (e) At approximately the same time, people living in Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair.

    (f) Early Neolithic Farmers: Those people with semi-white skin migrating from Anatolia were 50% ancient north Eurasians. (white).

    (g) Europeans (whites) arrived in (invaded) Europe starting 5000 years ago. Those people were more than 50% ancient north Eurasian, Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer. They had evolved in cooperation with or competition with the Iranic peoples who (at the time) were also 50% ancient north Eurasian.

    (h) Ancient North Eurasians (24k ybp) spread rapidly (like the Aryans did later) in a cline from north Eurasia (northern Russia), to Europe (easter, western, Scandinavian, and south european hunter-gatherers). They heavily affected the first immigrants to the Americas, and less so the Asians.

    (i) Present Europeans are almost exclusively the result of admixture between western hunter-gatherers, neolithic farmers, and (white) steppe herders (SH), who are all descendants of ancient north Eurasians.

    (j) my suspicion is that steppe and tundra life is extremely difficult physically, socially, and psychologically, limiting populations, but it has a very low disease gradient, and it’s relatively easy to obtain food, so it’s a very good cauldron to cook evolution. Africa and the Levant (dry, high disease gradient), north Eurasia (cold steppe, tundra, forest), european (mild weather forests and rivers), SE Asia (hot monsoon weather forests), and the south pacific (islands) are very different environments.

    The clock is ticking and the truth will soon be unavoidable.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-21 20:54:00 UTC

  • Excerpt…. (and after this, wait till you see my most recent work explaining th

    Excerpt…. (and after this, wait till you see my most recent work explaining the evolution of european civilization’s group strategy and metaphysics. I finally found a way to talk about it and get the point across easily.)

    ===

    4 – Any group that institutionalizes neotenic evolution (eugenics) will benefit from the fact that eugenics are the single most influential and desirable factor determining group quality of material life. Dysgenics are the single most desirable factor opposing material life in exchange for psychological life. Markets are naturally eugenic. Religion is the opposite. And serves largely to sedate us against evolutionary pressures as populations increase and with it, anonymity, irrelevance, and alienation.

    5 – Europeans, for entirely environmental reasons, were the only people to develop Law – meaning the natural law of tort (consisting of self-determination, sovereignty, property, and reciprocity) as their first social and political institution, instead of religion or state. And the law is a purely empirical means of social organization. As we shall see, the order of institutional development like any evolutionary process creates evolutionary dependencies, that determine the future of civilizations. (See: Path Dependence) Law is the least evolutionarily contradictory political institution. Just as commerce is the least evolutionarily contradictory social order. Just as the Military is the least evolutionarily contradictory extra-political order. Just as science (Testimony) is the least evolutionarily contradictory intellectual order.

    6 – Europeans, and specifically European aristocratic (Ruling) classes, for those entirely environmental reasons, and having developed empirical law as their first institution, were alone the only people to discover, adapt to, and apply the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws of the universe. Despite the extraordinary high psychological cost of doing so. And the one cost East Asians would also bear: the suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses and the direction of the surpluses to the production of commons. And in doing so dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, early mortality, in just a few centuries in the early bronze age, a few centuries in the ancient world, and a few centuries in the modern world – while the middle east stagnated then declined in dysgenia, the Indians were unable to transform the continent, the Chinese, luckily isolated from the middle east succeeded then stagnated, leaving Europeans as the only people to succeed in the transition out of victimization by nature, and the universe, and instead to domesticate it.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-21 10:32:00 UTC

  • Ana María Arumí the dirty secret of European and East Asian success (and everyon

    Ana María Arumí the dirty secret of European and East Asian success (and everyone else’s failure): manorialism, markets, credit. How do you think East Asia and northwestern europe ended up with two standard deviations of higher intelligence? Because the bottom was almost eradicated.

    What’s been happening since 1990? Since 1900? Since 1860?

    Where have 16 points of european IQ gone? What is the threshold for majority middle class civilization and democratic institutions? We only have a few more points to lose.

    1860 industrial revolution reverses agrarian suppression of reproduction. 1900 end of genetic pacification by hanging. 1970 end of sortition and redistribution of reproduction from middle to lower classes. 1990 reversal of gains of diet and educational improvement (Flynn effect) and continuous decline in aggregate intelligence increasingly exacerbated by Obama era expansion of immigration of the third world.

    Immigrating Europeans above the Hajnal line served to distribute a resource constrained middle class to American territories. Once that reserve was depleted (by 1880) we increased immigration of lower classes that were not only economic lower classes but genetic lower classes.

    Just as the patterns of immigration in Europe over the past eight thousand years arisble in the demographic. Just as in the America’s over 300 years, we can see the patterns of immigration over the past 70 years having similar effects.

    I know it’s not politically correct, and it’s not politically correct becaus the entire purpose of the marxist-pomo-hbd-denial program over past seventy years has been a counter-revolution against Darwin and the pre-war eugenics program meant to preserve the American experiment.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-20 20:37:00 UTC

  • Monuments and War

    Monuments and War https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/09/20/monuments-and-war/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-20 01:39:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307494623481401345