Curt Doolittle

Form: Excerpt

  • Aristocratic Republic Is the Only Possible Application of Democracy

    Jan 10, 2020, 4:23 PM by Scott De Warren European democracy (a rare and delicate bird) was exclusively aristocratic from ancient Hellas down to modern times. The French counter-enlightenment spread the obvious lie of human equality to justify the proletarian revolution (overthrow of demonstrated excellence in governance) through the universal franchise. When leftists conflate the one with the other (Proletarian rule with aristocratic rule) they are lying. Historic European representative government either in ancient Hellas or the republics of Genoa and Venice was always based on a limited franchise (it was always aristocratic) as was the aristocratic republic of the United States ab origine. The only democracy worth preserving is the aristocratic kind where political participation is a privilege limited to families of demonstrated ability or excellence over time.

  • Aristocratic Republic Is the Only Possible Application of Democracy

    Jan 10, 2020, 4:23 PM by Scott De Warren European democracy (a rare and delicate bird) was exclusively aristocratic from ancient Hellas down to modern times. The French counter-enlightenment spread the obvious lie of human equality to justify the proletarian revolution (overthrow of demonstrated excellence in governance) through the universal franchise. When leftists conflate the one with the other (Proletarian rule with aristocratic rule) they are lying. Historic European representative government either in ancient Hellas or the republics of Genoa and Venice was always based on a limited franchise (it was always aristocratic) as was the aristocratic republic of the United States ab origine. The only democracy worth preserving is the aristocratic kind where political participation is a privilege limited to families of demonstrated ability or excellence over time.

  • The Economic Policy of Elizabeth Warren

    Jan 19, 2020, 1:04 PM by Tyler Cowen Jerry Taylor has made some positive noises about her on Twitter lately, as had Will Wilkinson in earlier times. I genuinely do not see the appeal here, not even for Democrats. Let’s do a quick survey of some of her core views:

    1. She wants to ban fracking through executive order. This would enrich Russia and Saudi Arabia, harm the American economy ($3.5 trillion stock market gains from fracking), make our energy supply less green, and make our foreign policy more dependent on bad regimes and the Middle East. It is perhaps the single worst policy idea I have heard this last year, and some of the worst possible politics for beating Trump in states such as Pennsylvania.

    2. Her private equity plan. Making private equity managers personally responsible for the debts of the companies they acquire probably would crush the sector. The economic evidence on private equity is mostly quite positive. Maybe she would eliminate the worst features of her plan, but can you imagine her saying on open camera that private equity is mostly good for the American economy? I can’t.

    3. Her farm plan. It seems to be more nationalistic and protectionist and also more permanent than Trump’s, read here.

    4. Her tax plan I: Some of the wealthy would see marginal rates above 100 percent.

    5. Her tax plan II: Her proposed wealth tax would over time lead to rates of taxation on capital gains of at least 60 to 70 percent, much higher than any wealthy country ever has succeeded with. And frankly no one has come close to rebutting the devastating critique from Larry Summers.

    6. Student debt forgiveness: The data-driven people I know on the left all admit this is welfare for the relatively well-off, rather than a truly egalitarian approach to poverty and opportunity. Cost is estimated at $1.6 trillion, by the way (is trillion the new billion?). Furthermore, what are the long-run effects on the higher education sector? Do banks lend like crazy next time around, expecting to be bailed out by the government? Or do banks cut bank their lending, fearing a haircut on bailout number two? I am genuinely not sure, but thinking the question through does not reassure me.

    7. College free for all: Would wreck the relatively high quality of America’s state-run colleges and universities, which cover about 78 percent of all U.S. students and are the envy of other countries worldwide and furthermore a major source of American soft power. Makes sense only if you are a Caplanian on higher ed., and furthermore like student debt forgiveness this plan isn’t that egalitarian, as many of the neediest don’t finish high school, do not wish to start college, cannot finish college, or already reject near-free local options for higher education, typically involving community colleges.

    8. Health care policy: Her various takes on this, including the $52 trillion plan, are better thought of as (vacillating) political strategy than policy per se. In any case, no matter what your view on health care policy she has botched it, and several other Dem candidates have a better track record in this area. Even Paul Krugman insists that the Democrats should move away from single-payer purity. It is hard to give her net positive points on this one, again no matter what your policy views on health care, or even no matter what her views may happen to be on a particular day.

    All of my analysis, I should note, can be derived internal to Democratic Party economics, and it does not require any dose of libertarianism.

    1. Breaking up the Big Tech companies: I am strongly opposed to this, and I view it as yet another attack/destruction on a leading and innovative American sector. I will say this, though: unlike the rest of the list above, I know smart economists (and tech experts) who favor some version of the policy. Still, I don’t see why Jerry and Will should like this promise so much.

    Those are some pretty major sectors of the U.S. economy, it is not like making a few random mistakes with the regulation of toothpicks. In fact they are the major sectors of the U.S. economy, and each and every one of them would take a big hit. More generally, she seems to be a fan of instituting policies through executive order, a big minus in my view and probably for Jerry and Will as well? Villainization and polarization are consistent themes in her rhetoric, and at this point it doesn’t seem her chances for either the nomination, or beating Trump, are strong in fact her conditional chance of victory is well below that of the other major Dem candidates. So what really are you getting for all of these outbursts? When I add all that up, she seems to have the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders (whose views are often less detailed). I do readily admit this: Warren is a genius at exciting the egalitarian and anti-business mood affiliation of our coastal media and academic elites. If you would like to read defenses of Warren, here is Ezra Klein and here is Henry Farrell. I think they both plausibly point to parts of the Warren program that might be good (more good for them than for me I should add, but still I can grasp the other arguments on her behalf). They don’t much respond to the point that on #1-8, and possibly #1-9, she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime. For Jerry and Will, I just don’t see the attraction at all. That said, on her foreign policy, which I have not spent much time with, she might be better, so of course you should consider the whole picture. And quite possibly there are other candidates who, for other reasons, are worse yet, not hard to think of some. Or you might wish to see a woman president. Or you might think she would stir up “good discourse” on the issues you care about. And I fully understand that most of the Warren agenda would not pass. So I’m not trying to talk you out of supporting her! Still, I would like to design and put into the public domain a small emoji, one that you could add to the bottom of your columns and tweets. It would stand in for: “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”

  • Well that Fits but It’s a Big Surprise!!!

    Jan 19, 2020, 3:33 PM by Göran Dahl Up until very recently, it was thought that Eastern Europeans (in the form of Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians and Balts) were the genetically closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and, indeed, to Proto-Indo-Europeans. However, it appears that these ethnic groups had ever so slightly inflated Steppe ancestry percentages due to having higher levels of so-called Narva_HG admixture. Narva_HG belongs to the Mesolithic Narva culture, whose members were a mixture of EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) and WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer). Today, we can say that the people closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Indo-Europeans in terms of genetic distance (and Steppe ancestry) are Norwegians, Irishmen and Icelanders; the latter due to being a composite of the two former. Irishmen tend to be the closest fit for typical Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures such as Srubnaya and Sintashta, whereas Norwegians are the closest to Yamnaya_Kalmykia (a subset of Yamnaya) and Potapovka, which is thought to be ancestral to the forementioned Srubnaya.

  • Well that Fits but It’s a Big Surprise!!!

    Jan 19, 2020, 3:33 PM by Göran Dahl Up until very recently, it was thought that Eastern Europeans (in the form of Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Russians and Balts) were the genetically closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and, indeed, to Proto-Indo-Europeans. However, it appears that these ethnic groups had ever so slightly inflated Steppe ancestry percentages due to having higher levels of so-called Narva_HG admixture. Narva_HG belongs to the Mesolithic Narva culture, whose members were a mixture of EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer) and WHG (Western Hunter-Gatherer). Today, we can say that the people closest to Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Indo-Europeans in terms of genetic distance (and Steppe ancestry) are Norwegians, Irishmen and Icelanders; the latter due to being a composite of the two former. Irishmen tend to be the closest fit for typical Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures such as Srubnaya and Sintashta, whereas Norwegians are the closest to Yamnaya_Kalmykia (a subset of Yamnaya) and Potapovka, which is thought to be ancestral to the forementioned Srubnaya.

  • Necessary Reading for The Informed

    Jan 19, 2020, 3:43 PM NECESSARY READING FOR THE INFORMED by Göran Dahl A great document with lots of information regarding admixture events, ancestry proportions, what modern people are made up of etc. The Modern sections with “Yamnaya” proportions are somewhat misleading, because they don’t use actual Yamnaya people as proxies for Yamnaya ancestry, but rather two of the three components that Yamnaya people are made up of: CHG (Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer) and EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer). There is also a third component that has been left out: EEF (Early European Farmer), which is why Yamnaya proportions in modern Europeans and even ancient post-Yamnaya populations seem lower across the board. West Eurasia index2 docs.google.com https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LPWAEC3dbAEDu8aBAAcxIOa5CQjuflt0f0cvhCpZ_ME/htmlview

  • Necessary Reading for The Informed

    Jan 19, 2020, 3:43 PM NECESSARY READING FOR THE INFORMED by Göran Dahl A great document with lots of information regarding admixture events, ancestry proportions, what modern people are made up of etc. The Modern sections with “Yamnaya” proportions are somewhat misleading, because they don’t use actual Yamnaya people as proxies for Yamnaya ancestry, but rather two of the three components that Yamnaya people are made up of: CHG (Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer) and EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherer). There is also a third component that has been left out: EEF (Early European Farmer), which is why Yamnaya proportions in modern Europeans and even ancient post-Yamnaya populations seem lower across the board. West Eurasia index2 docs.google.com https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LPWAEC3dbAEDu8aBAAcxIOa5CQjuflt0f0cvhCpZ_ME/htmlview

  • Islamism and Soviets (now Persia and Islamism)

    Jan 22, 2020, 10:40 AM by Radu M Oleniuc The KGB had more than 500 high profile agents in Islamic countries back in the 70s. They realized the potential of religious war against the US. This is the moment where long time Marxists imposed burka and grow themselves beards (remember how Egypt and Iran was back in the 70s – no fundamentalism, and how it is today). They used religion as a tactic, nothing more. In some respect, this is the same method used by some Jews who don’t know Torah, are not religious at all, sometimes they don’t even believe in God (they don’t care much about the Israel state either), but at the same time they identify as (religious) Jews to silence everyone as antisemite or even a fascist, whey someone is criticizing them. The dogma was intertwined with politics, and this was used as a weapon against the western world. The Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East. At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today. … Lofton wrote about and has to conclude that the modern-day Islamic terrorists we face today grew out of these communist networks that the Soviets sponsored. … What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam. … Jeff Jeffrey R. Nyquist asks, “When we learn that a leading commander in ISIL was born in the Soviet Union and trained in Russia, we ought to wonder what is really going on?” Omar al-Shishani, the Russian commander in ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State), has been reported to be the group’s overall military chief. We have heard repeatedly about Americans and Europeans fighting for ISIL, but little attention is being devoted to the Russian-speaking foreign fighters that make up the group. Their numbers are estimated at 500 or more. Omar al-Shishani is usually described as a prominent Islamic State fighter who is Chechen. In fact, he was born in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and was trained there. … Before we jump to conclusions that Russia is on our side in fighting ISIS, it might be wise to examine the history of international terrorism, its Soviet roots, and Russia’s ties to these networks today. President Obama told “60 Minutes” on Sunday that the U.S. intelligence community had “underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” So what do we know about this mysterious entity called ISIS? Could Russia be playing both sides in this conflict as part of a geopolitical game to safeguard its Iranian client state? … Our media think that because the Soviet Union died and a modern Russia supposedly emerged in its place, these issues are irrelevant. But the head of this new Russia is a former KGB spy who wants to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. He invaded Ukraine. Is it really too much to believe that the Kremlin has had a hand in the rise of ISIS? https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10152796343961565   PARALLELS: ISLAM AND SOVIET SOCIALISM – AND CONSEQUENCES by Radu M Oleniuc (must read) Islam, like soviet socialism, is founded on a dual basis : on the one hand the ideological foundation, and on the other the imposition of that ideology through armed force. The combination of the two is characteristic. The earliest person to speak of this was Sima Qian, one of the greatest intellectuals in China, a historian, who was also prime minister. As an intellectual and as prime minister, he was perfectly acquainted with a system based both on ideology and on violence. In his letter to Jen An, which dates back to 91 B.C., he explains that, in such a system, there can be only two solutions :

    • physical death : you oppose the system and in that case you are killed

    • spiritual death : you pretend to believe in the ideology, and in that case you wear a mask.

    (but “the mask sticks to your face”, as Sima Qian said later in his books. The mask becomes you, and you become what you did not ever wanted to be. The whole process can last for years, or several generations, but JUST AS IT HAPPENED IN COMMUNISM, the phenomenon always ends with exactly the same results – and btw, this explains also the high approval rate of Putin, or the 99% who voted for Saddam. It’s not only fear driving these men, it’s much much more). Thus, according to Sima Qian, in a system founded both on force and on ideology, one can choose only between physical death and spiritual death. That is precisely the structure of Islam, founded both on ideology and on the use of armed force. Then there’s the interior violence that is exerted on the ‘dhimmis’, or peoples conquered by the Muslim armies, who lose all their political rights and the greater part of their civil rights, and who become foreigners in their own country. They are driven to extinction by a combination of methods. Throughout antiquity, and right up until the second half of the 19th century, there were fluctuations in population due either to famines, or to epidemics, or to wars. After each decline, the population would increase again until it reached its equilibrium, that is, the maximum number of people who could live on the land considering the agricultural techniques available. The Muslims built new towns, Oran, Cordoba, Cairo, etc. while slaughtering or deporting the local populations, and peopling the towns with Arabs either from the Hedjaz region or from Syria. It is a general phenomenon. Thus the Turkish population, initially 100% Christian, had fallen to 30% Christian by 1900, and is 0.2% Christian today. [We have the similar example of Pakistan today, or Egypt, Syria etc] Secular constitutions in Europe evolved and are separated from religion only where Christianity was properly applied. Because this concept exist only in this part of the world, for thousands of years. In Islam is not like that. In Islam the religion IS the state. 90% of Islam deals with civil problems, administration, regulations and so on. For Muslim scholars, Islam is “Dîn, Dunya, Daoula” (i.e. religion, society, state). And even a single comma is “sacred” in their book, thus cannot be changed – not like here, where we had dozens of versions (some conflicting among themselves) of the Bible. Hundreds of light years away from Virginia Convention or from “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God”. Hundreds of years away from the “wall of separation” of Roger Williams (a priest) or later, Jefferson. This is why they will NEVER reform their states. Not to mention the fact it is enforced with the sword at every step. In Christianity there is the concept of sword as well (Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace, but a sword.”). But it is not used as a violent means to something (only for defensive purposes – at his trial “bring only two swords”), and only to separate “mother from the daughter, son from father” etc. As any sin is an individual sin, not a collective one (a revolutionary concept again, at the time). And here comes individual responsibility in jurisprudence and coutumes. Yakuza and Japanese culture doesn’t understand this at all. They can pass “sins” (in the Old Greek the word for sin is debt) among others, and usually a low tier subaltern pays / takes the punishment for the boss, a habit that is so typical for any collectivist society (and this with ‘honor’ – crazy). This is a very long talk. At the end, I guess we must understand why Marcel Gauchet said “Christianity is the religion to end all other religions”, as it is the exit from dogma, cheap mysticism, forced morals (good by force), collectivism and so on. As all of the concepts we take from granted evolved very hard, but to conclude, we must understand why they happened ONLY in this part of the world. https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10153609756561565    

  • Islamism and Soviets (now Persia and Islamism)

    Jan 22, 2020, 10:40 AM by Radu M Oleniuc The KGB had more than 500 high profile agents in Islamic countries back in the 70s. They realized the potential of religious war against the US. This is the moment where long time Marxists imposed burka and grow themselves beards (remember how Egypt and Iran was back in the 70s – no fundamentalism, and how it is today). They used religion as a tactic, nothing more. In some respect, this is the same method used by some Jews who don’t know Torah, are not religious at all, sometimes they don’t even believe in God (they don’t care much about the Israel state either), but at the same time they identify as (religious) Jews to silence everyone as antisemite or even a fascist, whey someone is criticizing them. The dogma was intertwined with politics, and this was used as a weapon against the western world. The Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East. At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today. … Lofton wrote about and has to conclude that the modern-day Islamic terrorists we face today grew out of these communist networks that the Soviets sponsored. … What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam. … Jeff Jeffrey R. Nyquist asks, “When we learn that a leading commander in ISIL was born in the Soviet Union and trained in Russia, we ought to wonder what is really going on?” Omar al-Shishani, the Russian commander in ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State), has been reported to be the group’s overall military chief. We have heard repeatedly about Americans and Europeans fighting for ISIL, but little attention is being devoted to the Russian-speaking foreign fighters that make up the group. Their numbers are estimated at 500 or more. Omar al-Shishani is usually described as a prominent Islamic State fighter who is Chechen. In fact, he was born in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and was trained there. … Before we jump to conclusions that Russia is on our side in fighting ISIS, it might be wise to examine the history of international terrorism, its Soviet roots, and Russia’s ties to these networks today. President Obama told “60 Minutes” on Sunday that the U.S. intelligence community had “underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” So what do we know about this mysterious entity called ISIS? Could Russia be playing both sides in this conflict as part of a geopolitical game to safeguard its Iranian client state? … Our media think that because the Soviet Union died and a modern Russia supposedly emerged in its place, these issues are irrelevant. But the head of this new Russia is a former KGB spy who wants to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. He invaded Ukraine. Is it really too much to believe that the Kremlin has had a hand in the rise of ISIS? https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10152796343961565   PARALLELS: ISLAM AND SOVIET SOCIALISM – AND CONSEQUENCES by Radu M Oleniuc (must read) Islam, like soviet socialism, is founded on a dual basis : on the one hand the ideological foundation, and on the other the imposition of that ideology through armed force. The combination of the two is characteristic. The earliest person to speak of this was Sima Qian, one of the greatest intellectuals in China, a historian, who was also prime minister. As an intellectual and as prime minister, he was perfectly acquainted with a system based both on ideology and on violence. In his letter to Jen An, which dates back to 91 B.C., he explains that, in such a system, there can be only two solutions :

    • physical death : you oppose the system and in that case you are killed

    • spiritual death : you pretend to believe in the ideology, and in that case you wear a mask.

    (but “the mask sticks to your face”, as Sima Qian said later in his books. The mask becomes you, and you become what you did not ever wanted to be. The whole process can last for years, or several generations, but JUST AS IT HAPPENED IN COMMUNISM, the phenomenon always ends with exactly the same results – and btw, this explains also the high approval rate of Putin, or the 99% who voted for Saddam. It’s not only fear driving these men, it’s much much more). Thus, according to Sima Qian, in a system founded both on force and on ideology, one can choose only between physical death and spiritual death. That is precisely the structure of Islam, founded both on ideology and on the use of armed force. Then there’s the interior violence that is exerted on the ‘dhimmis’, or peoples conquered by the Muslim armies, who lose all their political rights and the greater part of their civil rights, and who become foreigners in their own country. They are driven to extinction by a combination of methods. Throughout antiquity, and right up until the second half of the 19th century, there were fluctuations in population due either to famines, or to epidemics, or to wars. After each decline, the population would increase again until it reached its equilibrium, that is, the maximum number of people who could live on the land considering the agricultural techniques available. The Muslims built new towns, Oran, Cordoba, Cairo, etc. while slaughtering or deporting the local populations, and peopling the towns with Arabs either from the Hedjaz region or from Syria. It is a general phenomenon. Thus the Turkish population, initially 100% Christian, had fallen to 30% Christian by 1900, and is 0.2% Christian today. [We have the similar example of Pakistan today, or Egypt, Syria etc] Secular constitutions in Europe evolved and are separated from religion only where Christianity was properly applied. Because this concept exist only in this part of the world, for thousands of years. In Islam is not like that. In Islam the religion IS the state. 90% of Islam deals with civil problems, administration, regulations and so on. For Muslim scholars, Islam is “Dîn, Dunya, Daoula” (i.e. religion, society, state). And even a single comma is “sacred” in their book, thus cannot be changed – not like here, where we had dozens of versions (some conflicting among themselves) of the Bible. Hundreds of light years away from Virginia Convention or from “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God”. Hundreds of years away from the “wall of separation” of Roger Williams (a priest) or later, Jefferson. This is why they will NEVER reform their states. Not to mention the fact it is enforced with the sword at every step. In Christianity there is the concept of sword as well (Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace, but a sword.”). But it is not used as a violent means to something (only for defensive purposes – at his trial “bring only two swords”), and only to separate “mother from the daughter, son from father” etc. As any sin is an individual sin, not a collective one (a revolutionary concept again, at the time). And here comes individual responsibility in jurisprudence and coutumes. Yakuza and Japanese culture doesn’t understand this at all. They can pass “sins” (in the Old Greek the word for sin is debt) among others, and usually a low tier subaltern pays / takes the punishment for the boss, a habit that is so typical for any collectivist society (and this with ‘honor’ – crazy). This is a very long talk. At the end, I guess we must understand why Marcel Gauchet said “Christianity is the religion to end all other religions”, as it is the exit from dogma, cheap mysticism, forced morals (good by force), collectivism and so on. As all of the concepts we take from granted evolved very hard, but to conclude, we must understand why they happened ONLY in this part of the world. https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10153609756561565    

  • Teaching You Immunity to GSRRM

    Jan 22, 2020, 1:47 PM by Noah J Revoy GSRRM is the weapon of choice for the left. They used it to conquer the physically and martially superior men of the west. Good news folks, we have fully discovered the secrets of how their weapons work. We can defeat it. We can become 100% immune to this manipulation. Without GSRRM the left is POWERLESS. I can teach you how to be immune to manipulation. DM me. Follow Curt Doolittle, John Mark et all.