Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Criminality Is Genetic and Dysgenia Is an Institutional Failure

    CRIMINALITY IS GENETIC AND DYSGENIA IS AN INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE

    —“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter

    1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?

    —“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471

    What is it instead? 😉 because those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.

  • Criminality Is Genetic and Dysgenia Is an Institutional Failure

    CRIMINALITY IS GENETIC AND DYSGENIA IS AN INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE

    —“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter

    1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?

    —“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471

    What is it instead? 😉 because those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.

  • The Law of Cycles of Political Orders

    THE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (core) [O]rganizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.

  • The Law of Cycles of Political Orders

    THE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (core) [O]rganizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.

  • Testimony: “Learn and Teach P Through Imitation and Iteration”

    Brandon Hayes Follow some P members, and use the “see first” Friendship or Follow option. Read the posts daily. Most of what you see you won’t be able to unsee. Meaning you’ll have know it to be true but never had the words to articulate it. Share those posts that gift you clearer frames; The ones that give you the “aha” moments. Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face. The technical arguments irritate many (they ought to; you’ve been lied to); the practical knowledge however is always received kindly. Mike Emmons I get a lot of knowledge and clarity from following y’all. Perspectives and wisdom I’ll never find anywhere else. Still learning methodology. Well worth the time I think. Bill ‘s and John ‘s vids are very helpful. (John’s last one [Constitution] knocked it out of the park). Daniel Roland Anderson And look up new words, or P-specific words. Identify Curt’s neologisms. Turns out, knowing what other people mean is important. Ross Lampers Learn that Curt deserves the benefit of the doubt like 100% of the time, or else assume you’ve misunderstood him Lol Luke Weinhagen . First competence (consume P accurately) Then expertise (produce P accurately) Then craftsmanship (produce accurate P that survives markets) Then mastery (complete integration of methodology into self) I want to see hundreds of craftsmen bringing P to hundreds of markets. Maintaining accuracy while doing this – “Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face.” – Own your P frame and lead your market to it. Adam Jacob Robert Walker I think I learned a lot from trying to explain it to others irl. When they didn’t understand, I’d go back, make sure I understood it, improve where needed, then come back with a reframing, then repeat. Luke Weinhagen Absolutely. Same for me. I enjoy the long form discussion and argument we use to learn and build and test P. But it is the ability to strip it down and bring it to an audience that dictates our results. Whether we are a hobby or a solution. That is the dance between expertise and craftsmanship. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This is what I’m starving for, the long form arg with people like us, not the “normies”. I think Ive got an optimum amount of value from discussing with outsiders to us that I could possibly gain, relatively. Now I’m starving for the long form discussions with people like us, the “insiders”. I have this wonderful frame, and everything makes so much sense. Now, it’s like…what’s left. What’s left to talk about, that hasn’t already been covered extensively by either curt or one from our pack. I’ve got writers block on what to focus on in order to produce and add value to the rest of the movement. Luke Weinhagen Totally understand that. I found P in December of 2016 and probably spent the next 2 years just learning it, responding to Curt’s posts, and those of the other guys, and getting my face pounded as my sacred cows died. It was great and that model holds much value for me. But it does not serve most of the audiences I speak into. I can not bring long form P posts to work or to family or friends. I can not bring long form P posts into local politics. Those are my markets at the moment. So for me to add value to P at the moment, I have to find ways to take a 15 paragraph P concept and convey it in 5 sentences or less (exaggerating, but you get what I mean I hope) that are consumable by my markets. This is why you see me practicing condensations of the concepts in public threads and on my timeline. Anyone and everyone can add value to P by bringing P to their markets/audiences. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This matches my experience. Now, I want to go deeper and it’s like I need the experts to bounce ideas off of irl, not just people who don’t know. I can teach to newbs, given enough time and considering the material is graspable (within their limits to understand). TEACH P BY EXAMPLE (From request via twitter) Pick a topic of interest to you (problem, solution). You’ll do better with whatever is interesting to you. And the public will prefer listening to solutions. Search the P-site for articles on that topic and read as many as you can until you feel you ‘get it’. Usually that’s like ten. Address something about the topic(problem, solution) in your own words. Include the minimum quote, aphorism, definition, or series that brings certainty. Write a script. Pass the script by me, Martin, Brandon, or the other folks for error-checking.

  • Testimony: “Learn and Teach P Through Imitation and Iteration”

    Brandon Hayes Follow some P members, and use the “see first” Friendship or Follow option. Read the posts daily. Most of what you see you won’t be able to unsee. Meaning you’ll have know it to be true but never had the words to articulate it. Share those posts that gift you clearer frames; The ones that give you the “aha” moments. Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face. The technical arguments irritate many (they ought to; you’ve been lied to); the practical knowledge however is always received kindly. Mike Emmons I get a lot of knowledge and clarity from following y’all. Perspectives and wisdom I’ll never find anywhere else. Still learning methodology. Well worth the time I think. Bill ‘s and John ‘s vids are very helpful. (John’s last one [Constitution] knocked it out of the park). Daniel Roland Anderson And look up new words, or P-specific words. Identify Curt’s neologisms. Turns out, knowing what other people mean is important. Ross Lampers Learn that Curt deserves the benefit of the doubt like 100% of the time, or else assume you’ve misunderstood him Lol Luke Weinhagen . First competence (consume P accurately) Then expertise (produce P accurately) Then craftsmanship (produce accurate P that survives markets) Then mastery (complete integration of methodology into self) I want to see hundreds of craftsmen bringing P to hundreds of markets. Maintaining accuracy while doing this – “Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face.” – Own your P frame and lead your market to it. Adam Jacob Robert Walker I think I learned a lot from trying to explain it to others irl. When they didn’t understand, I’d go back, make sure I understood it, improve where needed, then come back with a reframing, then repeat. Luke Weinhagen Absolutely. Same for me. I enjoy the long form discussion and argument we use to learn and build and test P. But it is the ability to strip it down and bring it to an audience that dictates our results. Whether we are a hobby or a solution. That is the dance between expertise and craftsmanship. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This is what I’m starving for, the long form arg with people like us, not the “normies”. I think Ive got an optimum amount of value from discussing with outsiders to us that I could possibly gain, relatively. Now I’m starving for the long form discussions with people like us, the “insiders”. I have this wonderful frame, and everything makes so much sense. Now, it’s like…what’s left. What’s left to talk about, that hasn’t already been covered extensively by either curt or one from our pack. I’ve got writers block on what to focus on in order to produce and add value to the rest of the movement. Luke Weinhagen Totally understand that. I found P in December of 2016 and probably spent the next 2 years just learning it, responding to Curt’s posts, and those of the other guys, and getting my face pounded as my sacred cows died. It was great and that model holds much value for me. But it does not serve most of the audiences I speak into. I can not bring long form P posts to work or to family or friends. I can not bring long form P posts into local politics. Those are my markets at the moment. So for me to add value to P at the moment, I have to find ways to take a 15 paragraph P concept and convey it in 5 sentences or less (exaggerating, but you get what I mean I hope) that are consumable by my markets. This is why you see me practicing condensations of the concepts in public threads and on my timeline. Anyone and everyone can add value to P by bringing P to their markets/audiences. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This matches my experience. Now, I want to go deeper and it’s like I need the experts to bounce ideas off of irl, not just people who don’t know. I can teach to newbs, given enough time and considering the material is graspable (within their limits to understand). TEACH P BY EXAMPLE (From request via twitter) Pick a topic of interest to you (problem, solution). You’ll do better with whatever is interesting to you. And the public will prefer listening to solutions. Search the P-site for articles on that topic and read as many as you can until you feel you ‘get it’. Usually that’s like ten. Address something about the topic(problem, solution) in your own words. Include the minimum quote, aphorism, definition, or series that brings certainty. Write a script. Pass the script by me, Martin, Brandon, or the other folks for error-checking.

  • The Natural Law of European People in Most Reductive Form

    (getting close to most reductive and complete form)SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITYReciprocity in Nature: Memory creates consciousness, and consciousness creates choice. Empathy of condition, and sympathy of intention create the choice of predation or parasitism upon, trade and cooperation with, avoidance and boycott of one another. Of these choices, predation is most useful in the short term, parasitism when possible, avoidance and boycott when necessary, trade and cooperation is disproportionately rewarding – but disproportionately rewarding only so long as cheating by boycotting, free riding, parasitism, and predation is all but eliminated. The only means of preserving the disproportionate returns on, and rewards of, cooperation then, is Reciprocity. Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Reciprocity in deed consists in Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5]. Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Reciprocity in word consists in Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits. If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal. DECIDABILITY We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must. Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined. This is the Natural Law. EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY: An Entrepreneurial Militia, Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort. Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war. Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons. And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons. (…) Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined. THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance). EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders. OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so. ENFORCEMENT “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.” === Definitions: 1. Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.

    1. Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.

    2. Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).

    3. Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).

    4. Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.

    5. Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony). Truthful, Consistent, Correspondent, Operationally Possible, Complete, Coherent.

    6. Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title

    7. Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.

  • The Natural Law of European People in Most Reductive Form

    (getting close to most reductive and complete form)SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITYReciprocity in Nature: Memory creates consciousness, and consciousness creates choice. Empathy of condition, and sympathy of intention create the choice of predation or parasitism upon, trade and cooperation with, avoidance and boycott of one another. Of these choices, predation is most useful in the short term, parasitism when possible, avoidance and boycott when necessary, trade and cooperation is disproportionately rewarding – but disproportionately rewarding only so long as cheating by boycotting, free riding, parasitism, and predation is all but eliminated. The only means of preserving the disproportionate returns on, and rewards of, cooperation then, is Reciprocity. Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Reciprocity in deed consists in Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5]. Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Reciprocity in word consists in Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits. If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal. DECIDABILITY We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must. Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined. This is the Natural Law. EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY: An Entrepreneurial Militia, Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort. Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war. Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons. And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons. (…) Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined. THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance). EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders. OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so. ENFORCEMENT “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.” === Definitions: 1. Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.

    1. Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.

    2. Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).

    3. Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).

    4. Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.

    5. Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony). Truthful, Consistent, Correspondent, Operationally Possible, Complete, Coherent.

    6. Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title

    7. Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.

  • TERRIBLE ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO IMPROVE THEM WITH THE SCIENCE OF IT Why the wealth

    TERRIBLE ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO IMPROVE THEM WITH THE SCIENCE OF IT

    Why the wealth of western civilization?

    Greater success at reproductive juvenilization. we are not sure why other than that slowing the rate of maturity is possible in colder climates, whereas accelerating the rate of maturity in warmer clients is necessary for no other reason than to survive the higher incidence of disease, parasites, and predators.

    Greater success at aggressive culling the size of the underclasses. While it is impolitic to say so, the wealth or poverty of a people is more dependent upon the reduction and elimination of the underclasses than it is upon the production of exceptional people and education. A good rule of thumb is that every person at the bottom is six times as costly as every person at the top is productive.

    Greater success at eliminating the clannishness impulse. Again, we are not sure if this is an artifact of low population density and cold climates, or purely one of cultural forces influence reproductive choice. In either event, white people (to their detriment) are less tribal and clannish.

    For reasons we are just beginning to understand, the west made very different cultural choices. (a) telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth as highest virtue, despite any impact it would ahve on the dominance hierarchy. (b) Sovereignty and Markets in Everything creating a market for polities, and polities led by markets, rather than monopolistic hierarchies. As a consequence a division of the state into different institutions that competed with one another. This led to deflationary literature where the rest of the world relied on conflationary literature. (c) that the gods, like men, are subject to the laws of the natural universe, and that man can defeat the folly of these gods with cunning and effort.

    So white people are more trusting, more trustworthy, and have institutions that depend upon more trusting, more trustworthy people, and together these reduce the frictions that constrain non white peoples to lesser conditions. The only people close to whites are the Japanese and south koreans. And even among whites, these rules apply only to whites from above the Hajnal Line (protestants and their descendants) who practiced Bipartite Manorialism.

    TRUST=COOPERATIVE VELOCITY=RATE OF ECONOMY

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-28 18:18:00 UTC

  • What Does White Mean?

    (possibly controversial post warning)(This post covers genetic differences in neoteny, cognition and personality between geographic groups, and between the sexes. Stop reading if you are concerned you would be offended.)

    —“White means….”— Elizabeth Anonymous

    [I] do science. I leave intellectual dishonesty for others. We don’t have a term for Genetic, Ethnic, Europeans other than ‘White’. But “White”, meaning Ancestral Ethnic European, is easily genetically determinable. In general, at least six generations are necessary to launder ethnic outbreeding. Even, by six generations someone will still express certain dominant traits despite constraining breeding within the group. And it is still easy to determine the difference between a full Scandinavian and the same generation with an Iberian ancestor. Whites are the remains of the post-glacial maximum peoples, plus the early neolithic farmers, who were conquered, largely genocided and replaced by the ie’s. We are the most genetically homogenous people outside of Han-Korean-Japanese. The only open question is whether we include the remaining pre-ie Anatolian, early neolithic farmer populations of the Balkans, Greece, Southern Italy, and Sardinia in the classification ‘white’ out of cultural affinity under Christianity, or we limit ourselves to genetics using the european branch of the IE expansion: Itals (south), Germanics, Scandinavians, Baltics, Slavs, and Finnics. The rest of the Caucasians descend from the Iranic branch of the IE’s, and anatolians (Hittites), Caucasians (if they existed), and those that integrated into the Semitic peoples – are all lost to us. There were only a few post-glacial maximum west eurasian peoples, and the turks of the northern far east, are the only peoples of the post-glacial that are not indo europeans. Science is science. Women fear conflict. Women disapprove rather than accept an undesirable but true statement. Women will deny a truth to avoid conflict. Women will advance a falsehood to eschew conflict. While the male vs female distribution of personality Traits and Facets overlaps, the difference between the sexual (gender) relative homogeneity of traits, and the relative heterogeneity of Facets under those traits, is (a) agreeableness, (c) dominance expression, and this results in the (to females) annoying male habit of stating the truth despite the undesirability of it. It also accounts for the approximately 20% improvement in male detection of general trait expression and symmetric improvement in female detection of individual trait expression. In other words, males are more often correct in the ascertainment of empirically correct stereotypes than females, both at the perceptual-cognitive level and at the agreeability level. While women are equally superior at individual emotional empathy and incentive-sympathy. Net net of the science as it sits: Neoteny slows maturity and buys agency (neural formation) at the cost of emotional instability (creativity, neuroticism). This explains the high emotional instability of european women, and the nearly 1/3 of european women that experience psychological issues when not working in close association with other women to limit them. East asians are the most neotenous by far, europeans less so, africans and afro-asiatics lees so. This is why east asians, then europeans, then afrio-asiatics (semitic peoples), the africans have increasing rates of maturity at decreasing agency and verbal ability. Europeans (a) have not over-neotenized like the east asians nor under neotenized like the africans, and at the same time we have practiced cold weather eugenics for thousands of years. So between our neotenic development, our least-clannish(racist) temperament, our balance of verbal and spatial abilities, and our development of sovereignty (what we mistakenly call individualism) and the culture that resulted from it, including tripartism (markets between miltiary-judicial, producers-philosophers, and priests-theologians, we developed reason, empiricism, science, technology and medicine faster than all other peoples in the world combined. Ergo, unfortunately, it’s true that at last working class and upward whites are genetically and culturally superior in those ways necessary for the production of advanced and rapidly advancing civilization. And demand by women and immigrants to revert our civilization to primitive, reality-denying, maladaptive, authoritarian, non-market civilization, just proves that (a) these other peoples are unable to integrate in our civilization because they cannot compete in it, (b) our women have defected against our civilization out of fear of conflict and are assisting the destruction of our civilization – just as women and slaves undermined and brought down the roman empire using Christianity from within. So christianity in the ancient world with the false promise of life after death, and promise of freedom from nature’s competition by marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, human-bio-diversity-denialism, and ‘silencing the truth’ in the modern world to destroy western civlization yet again. It’s women that need to look in the mirror. Not men. We have the courage to face the man in the mirror. Do you have the courage to face the woman in the mirror? That is the only test of equality of agency that matters.