Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548779115 Timestamp) UNDERSTAND: RELIGION IS THE HARDEST PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Because it is education and training of the intuition by suggestion using narrative, ritual, oath, and debt. And because the intuition is the lowest common denominator of decidability in a population, demanding the least reason, calculation, and calculation. We are not ignorant as we have been throughout history. What we call ‘spirituality’ is the evolutionary artifact of the reduction of cognitive, social, physical, and therefore emotional burden by submission to and membership in the pack(male bias) or herd (female bias), and the resulting feeling of peace, safety, and mindfulness that results from that submission (surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd. The more agency, opportunity, experience, peace, safety, and mindfulness one has the lower the demand for the feeling of ‘spirituality’. The less agency, opportunity, experience, pace, safety and mindfulness on has, the greater the demand for the mindfulness that results from submission(surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd. We cannot demand those lacking interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military market value survive without the training in mindfulness that makes possible individual, interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military cooperation with others and the benefits that come from it. That would be IRRECIPROCAL. However, we can at the same time limit the external agency of those who lack the agency and market value to use the political process to influence others where such an influence is against the natural law. By the demand for truthful speech in the commons in matters commercial, … we eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By eliminating the need for churches to obtain donations, we likewise eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By demanding the churches warranty their due diligence in the production of education in the personal, interpersonal, social, commercial, financial, economic, political, and military. This will have the effect of driving groups that are hostile to the natural law and to european civilization out of every aspect of life, and make ‘religions’ liable for the actions of their ‘products’: citizens.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548777714 Timestamp) THE PRESERVATION OF CHRISTIANITY AS A POLITICAL RELIGION, AND THE RESTORATION OF PAGAN AND HEATHEN CULTURAL RELIGION UNDER THE NATURAL LAW. (I don’t want to interfere in Maximus’ thread, because he certainly doesn’t need my help in arguing propertarian natural law, but I like the suggestion that I should do a video. I have already done the subject with our favorite Aussie, and I will do the video now that you bring it up. Let’s understand these facts. 1 – Christianity teaches natural law – just poorly. 2 – Christianity teaches (exhaustive tit-for-tat) optimum IN-GROUP strategy as an extension of natural law – but does do poorly, and because it does so poorly – does not limit to kin, (is universalist (outgroup)) and therefore a mixture of good and bad. 3 – Christianity made us, particularly our women, vulnerable to marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, because these three ‘replacement religions’ are communicated by the same false promise and sophomoric argument, but 4 – The evidence is that christianity produces prosperity wherever it goes, but is a higher demand than Islam, like judaism is a higher demand than christianity. But the fact remains that western people still retain both Legal (roman) intellectual (greek), familial (heathen european), and political(semitic) ‘cults’. And these cults are all reflections of our classes. And all of the classes make use of what set of cults is necessary for cooperation at their level of agency.(ability to act). 5 – The purpose of christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, was to destroy the empirical, rational, military, legal, and commercial order and replace it with Egyptian, south semitic, north semitic, and Persian means of ruling an underclass through false promises (life after death), false debt(‘for our sins”, “original sins”) using supernatural frauds in the ancient world, and using economic (marxist), social (postmodern), and political (feminism and multiculturalism) in the modern world. My understanding is that especially among those who will fight, christianity must be accommodated, and the law says that it can be accommodated because among religions it teaches natural law. Evidence is that churches are emptying. Particularly in mixed areas. and you haven’t seen the law on religion I’m proposing yet, so you don’t know that I’m suggesting restoring the economy to the church and restoring competition with the state – under certain conditions. And i’m also suggesting how any of our ‘natural religions’ can obtain this same cultural, economic, political centrality once again, by providing particularly powerful incentives, including restoring education and educational funding to ‘churches’ in the broadest sense (and ending centralized education). (in other words, prohibiting falsehood is different from demanding certain skills). Under these incentives I believe our religions will slowly (possibly rapidly) migrate away from falsehood to truthfulness due to incentives of (a) simple economics (b) increasing vastly their influence, (c) defending themselves from the state. In other words, ‘let nature take its course’, and keep the state out of christian faith, and keep christian faith out of TRUTH CLAIMS. This sets up a market for the three categories of religion, while providing mindfulness. A christian can say “i hold [xxxx] as a matter of faith, I do not claim it is true, because what is true must be open to testimony, and Faith itself is not open to testimony. As long as I do not try to use truth claims (arguments) in matters commercial, financial, economic, and political, then I have not broken the law.” One cannot claim something false is true for the purpose of induction (consequential argument). And in particular (islam/judaism/catholicism) because one may not claim there is any law other than the natural law (no competitor). And one may not advocate a religion that is duplicitous because of that (Judaism and Islam are duplicitous and poly-ethical.). With the prohibition on judaism and islam, the preservation of christianity due to its natural law, the universal education in stoicism (mindfulness), and the combination of christian and european (heathen) festivals, my understanding is that we will see our religion return to its natural condition where the poor are christian, the middle ancestral (heathen), an the upper-classes, as always, purely empirical and giving respect to the middle and lower through participation in oath, ritual and festival. So it is not so much that we need to end Christianity, as it is we need to create a range of churches (wholistic mindfulness, socialization, and education) that will serve the interest of the different classes In content, while the same underlying constraint on adherence to natural law. In other words, we must make a practical accommodation for faith in those who need faith because they have no alternative to faith for the purpose of obtaining that mindfulness necessary in a complex society in which many of us lack the familial, social, economic, political relations, as well as perhaps the genetics to provide value in social, economic, and political markets. So there is ‘something for everyone at a cost to everyone’ in my proposal. But it is hard to argue against the cllection of goods. we know this because while people will claim they are christian, go to church, celebrate festivals, take oaths, abide by rules, they will very rarely, under oath, claim such things are true. All humans follow interests. They follow interests becasue it is in their interests. And they use propaganda an arugment and belief to justify the pursuit of those interests. This is a small part of a very complex subject, and was the most complex subject I had to tackle with. Religion is the hard problem of social science, because it is, in the end, education in the ability of people to work in harmony with their intuitions as animals and in harmony with each other in groups, and therefore reach personal, familial, social, economic, political, and military benefits from one another.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548818179 Timestamp) —“CURT: QUESTION: THE ECONOMICS OF THE PERCEPTION OF ART?”— Could you recommend any works on Art Theory? I have been looking a bit into Rand’s Romantic Manifesto. (CD: honestly – and this will surprise people – as far as I know (and I know) there aren’t any better. My work is an extension of the RM. And honestly it’s the best most important piece she wrote and in my opinion the only piece with long term value. It influenced me greatly. If you add Gary Becker’s economic analysis of art I think you get the rest of it.) It seems the absence of art (silence, non-action) achieves non-imposition of costs whereas the act of art always imposes costs. (CD: I would say is broken into two statements. 1- Markets require attention seeking – that is how we reduce opportunity costs: density of opportunity and density of attention opportunities. 2- Some commons offer aesthetic attention seeking as an alternative to ‘unordered’, wild or unmaintained, commons. A well manicured park with statues of men of arts and letters is a pretty good place to be. 3- Not all commons are available for attention seeking, or attention-drawing, – and in fact that is what ‘sacred’ means. 4- Not all people possess the ability and training to respect sacred spaces, and they must be protected from such people.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. (CD: I would say that art consists of that which the actor intends to invest in obtaining attention by the expenditure of resources for the provision of aesthetic returns. in other words, we choose to invest in the aesthetics of any given craft (making) for the purpose of attention to the decoration of mind, time and space in all that term’s possible meanings.) Who defines what is art and what is not? – Consumers, viewers, participants. (CD: Um, I would say no, that art is what it is across the spectrum of childish to amateurish, to professional, to iconic, to revolutionary. I would say that craft, design, editorial, and art are very different things. i would say some people engage in fraud that takes advantage of consumer ignorance, and that the value of art is determined by long term market forces (what survives the competition between fashion and ignorance). (CD: many goods are brought to market, those that survive in the market survive, those that don’t do not. What is an attempt at art is defined above. what succeeds at art is determined by a series of markets, the most common of which is REFERENCE BY OTHER ARTIST: by imitation. Art is worthy of perception. – Perception costs are time and energy. (CD: the market determines whether it is worthy of perception, most art is not worthy of perception just like most products are not worthy of consumption. The difference is that it is easier to find a sucker for bad art than it is to find a sucker for a bad car, and far harder to find a sucker for a poorly tailored bit of clothing.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. Who defines what is art and what is not? Consumers, viewers, participants. Art is worthy of perception. Perception costs are time and labor. (CD: We would use a slighting different set of terms I suggest you adopt: Art competes for attention. Attention is a resource, consisting of time and energy. The returns on attention are either there, or they are not. Given that the returns vary from the free association the art causes for the individual, for people who see his possession of it, for public use, and for public ceremonial use, the chances of providing that return are highly dependent upon the craft, design, content, scale, of the piece. What you put in your bathroom, your guest bath, your living room, your office, a court building, and a church hold different standards.) Viewers perceive, recognize and set value on something. Perception and recognition cost time and labor. Similar to how consumers set prices. An act of art doesn’t exist because its up to it is a viewer value judgement. (CD: Hmmmm. Art is a product like any other. Books are a product like any other. tools are products like any other. You must undrestand the language and context of the book to buy and use it for returns. You must understand the possible operations and context of use of a tool to buy and use it for returns. ) (CD: the problem in your reasoning is as usual one of grammar. People create products. Those products serve a function or not (satisfy a market demand). Those products serve sufficient market demands to sell or not (provide marginal value necessary for incentive to exchange). Those exchanges(investments) survive the market for aesthetic competition over time, for the intended market whether individual, group, polity, world). Here is what you might be searching for: Public art of any kind is dependent on shares strategy, values, knowledge, and experience. Lacking those shared properties it is no longer possible to produce art that does not impose a cost instead of provide a return. Everything is open to economic analysis under propertarianism.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548867709 Timestamp) Life does “suck” for the ugly, stupid, ignorant. And life is much better for the attractive, smart, and knowledgeable. For the simple reason that downward associations are dead weight costs, and upward associations potential opportunities. Now this requires a half to one standard deviation in difference to apply. But it does apply. And it increases in cost and benefit the farther away from your position. Each of us has military, sexual, social, economic, and political value. Some of us just have very little of any of them. The only solution is limiting the reproduction of those that have no value so that they impose fewer costs and therefore frictions with prosperity and happiness.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548819492 Timestamp) REGARDING: NEWS: “VA WOMEN SEEK TO PERMIT ABORTION DURING BIRTH” (NAXALT WARNING: whenever we use a universal category like men or women, men and women exist in a distribution of ability. bias. experience. and knowledge, but we can still quite easily make ‘general rules of general precision regarding the cumulative behavior of those distributions’ – No More NAXALT Deceits!) (SENSITIVE TOPIC WARNING: Sorry but this is science. No more lies.) MEN Men defend the herd (women and children) by instinct. Everything men do attempts to preserve sufficient loyalty among super-predators, for the male pack to maintain the resource of the female herd in competition against other packs who compete for resources – including our female herd. WOMEN Women conduct “sh-t tests” by instinct. Or better stated, women look for opportunities to undermine. This is how they create and maintain equality: undermining. Women eliminate competitors by undermining. They control the fitness of their males in competition with other males by undermining. They control access to their reproductive facility by undermining. They control each other through undermining. And where men simply end the threat to the pack, women seek to destroy competition completely. Women undermine. They feel ‘good’ and ‘relaxed’ whenever they undermine any and everyone. Western men are the victims of permissiveness in letting women undermine. There is no end to woman’s want of nesting. There is no end to woman’s want of attention. There is no end to woman’s want of undermining. Women in Europe took out their anger on the church. Women in Anglodom took out their anger on the monarchy. Women in America took out their anger on men. They undermined the church, they undermined, the monarchy, and they undermine their men, and the undermine all that has made their lives of relative luxury possible – and they will never, ever, stop. Despite the fact that it was heroism, loyalty, sovereignty, property, marriage, and paternalism that raised us out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, suffering, disease, child mortality, early death, the perils of the seasons and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life. We are but riders on the elephants of our evolutionary heritage embodied in our genes, and expressed in our physiology, and demonstrated in our behavior. Our though and speech is nothing more than a means of negotiating on behalf of those genes. By extraordinary effort we can develop the agency to reason – and not be controlled by the elephant, rather than intuit and feel – and be controlled by the elephant. The elephant does not tell us what is good. It tells us only how to compete in small bands of hunter gatherers. (Yes I am riffing off the obvious)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548868857 Timestamp) QUESTION: IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE? (The Definitive Answer. Core.) —“Curt, sorry to bother you because I know you are extremely busy, but need your insight.”— CD: Thank you for respecting my time, but it’s my job, and I like my job (mostly). It’s no use being a Law Giver if you don’t answer questions of law. 😉 —“I am having a discussion about reciprocity with a person coming from a philosophy background. It started with his assertion that all morality is subjective.”— CD: This is a grammatical problem – a failure of deflation and disambiguation.

    • Personal morality is subjective and representative of personal utility, under which one considers actions reciprocal(power) and proportional(weakness) or not. It is not in fact moral, only useful.

    • Normative morality is subjectively respectable or avoidable, but rarely breakable without some cost to you. It is not in fact moral, only the result of market competition for reciprocity(power) and proportionality(weakness).

    • Juridical Morality is objective: it is merely reciprocal. This is an empirical AND logical AND rational statement, since it is the universal basis for all law, with northern european being the least ‘tainted’.

    So while a POSITIVE morality (what you want) may vary, NEGATIVE morality (what people do not want) does not vary. And while we may have different subjective opinions over negative morality, it is quite simple to demonstrate otherwise that all law operates by reciprocity in matters of dispute. And all legislation aims at producing proportionality with in the limits of tolerable reciprocity given the economic order possible for the people in their state of development and geography. In other words, it is not a opinion that morality (reciprocity) is a negative and objective universal, but that positive morality (proportionality) varies by circumstance. The problem is that we use the word MORALITY without deflating it into POSITIVE (proportionality) and NEGATIVE (reciprocity). Because variations in positive is merely utilitarian for the individual but invariance in the negative is utilitarian for all.) —“Of course, I took the opportunity to bring reciprocity into the discussion, even to the point where reciprocity as a measurable standard could be used to remove the subjectiveness. My meaning is that all acts are amoral, and we can measure empirically if an act is good (moral) or bad (immoral) based solely on if it violates reciprocity. “— CD: You are quite correct. I offer the previous few paragraphs as means of explaining his conflation of positive and negative morality. So like positive and negative freedom, there cannot be any forceful positive freedoms, only negative without breaking the negative. As such There is no positive morality that can be demanded, only negative morality demanded, without breaking negative morality. … It might surprise you that it took 2500 years for someone to write those paragraphs but unfortunately, every other time it vanished. Maybe this time it will vanish through suppression as well. —“I do not want to bring property-in-toto into the discussion yet, as I am attempting to keep in simple and in lay terms, even using simple examples to demonstrate. “— CD: You don’t bring property in toto into a discussion since that is too loaded. It is better to ask if everything can be reduced to attempt at acquisition of something whether information experience, opportunity or resource and ask them if they can find an exception – they can’t. Then you just explain everything in terms of who is trying to acquire or defend what, and then show how reciprocity is the only rational choice – particularly for the strong. —“I am writing as much (actually more) for others who will read it than trying to convince this “moral relativist”, so I don’t want to overcomplicate it. “— (CD: Good. That is the tactic you should always use. You are more likely to sway the audience than the opponent, because the audience is less invested in the signaling.) —“Okay, now for the question. “—- CD: So you’re going to ask something harder than to deflate morality and to determine if it is objective or subjective? lol. —“I was reading back though your posts, even back to 2016, looking if there was any insights if there are any conditions under which Conquest/Colonization did not violate reciprocity? I doubt I will be able to convince him, as he will not let go of his “subjectivity”, but I believe I need to answer his point that even property obtained via reciprocity is subjective, because one can reject the validity of ownership (by lack of moral justifications) because it can “only be owned through social contract” and that social contract is “based on theft and colonization.”— —“He also claims that there cannot be one standard, even one of reciprocity, because even it is subjective. He claims that the “operational variables required for it to be true cannot exist outside subjectivity”. But, is that not why we make it operational and deflate terms, to remove such subjectivity? Am I missing something?”— There is one negative standard (reciprocity) by which all laws especially international laws are judged. That’s both logical and empirical. The evidence is what it is. It may be useful within groups to develop personal and normative morality, and to legislate proportionality for various utilitarian reasons. However, morality remains, like freedom, like law, both logically and empirically a via-negativa; a via-negativa of reciprocity; and no positive morality can exist without violating the via negativa other than restitution for costs imposed. I suppose I should diagram this so that it’s a bit more obvious to people. But they readily (all of us do) conflate personal moral intuition, with normative moral habituation, with objective morality: reciprocity. And there is no other meaning possible, and all other attempts to make it possible are thefts, frauds, and sophisms. There is one objective moral law: reciprocity, and an infinite number of utilitarian means of contributing to a commons from which all might benefit. To say those contributions to the commons in order to satisfy a sense of proportionality as well as reciprocity, are moral is simply false. They are purchasing amoral options against immorality. And most of those options are returning nothing other than psychic rewards (self worth, virtue signaling) because of one’s failure to meaningfully contribute, because of one’s lack of agency. SO worse, those that lack such agency use this virtue signaling to coerce redistribution (theft) from some to others not for sake of proportionality or reciprocity, but to compensate for their lack of agency in achieving proportionality under the terms of reciprocity. That is all. If you can find any other philosopher that does a better job of providing this explanatory power in this precise a langauge then I would love to know who that is. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548819492 Timestamp) REGARDING: NEWS: “VA WOMEN SEEK TO PERMIT ABORTION DURING BIRTH” (NAXALT WARNING: whenever we use a universal category like men or women, men and women exist in a distribution of ability. bias. experience. and knowledge, but we can still quite easily make ‘general rules of general precision regarding the cumulative behavior of those distributions’ – No More NAXALT Deceits!) (SENSITIVE TOPIC WARNING: Sorry but this is science. No more lies.) MEN Men defend the herd (women and children) by instinct. Everything men do attempts to preserve sufficient loyalty among super-predators, for the male pack to maintain the resource of the female herd in competition against other packs who compete for resources – including our female herd. WOMEN Women conduct “sh-t tests” by instinct. Or better stated, women look for opportunities to undermine. This is how they create and maintain equality: undermining. Women eliminate competitors by undermining. They control the fitness of their males in competition with other males by undermining. They control access to their reproductive facility by undermining. They control each other through undermining. And where men simply end the threat to the pack, women seek to destroy competition completely. Women undermine. They feel ‘good’ and ‘relaxed’ whenever they undermine any and everyone. Western men are the victims of permissiveness in letting women undermine. There is no end to woman’s want of nesting. There is no end to woman’s want of attention. There is no end to woman’s want of undermining. Women in Europe took out their anger on the church. Women in Anglodom took out their anger on the monarchy. Women in America took out their anger on men. They undermined the church, they undermined, the monarchy, and they undermine their men, and the undermine all that has made their lives of relative luxury possible – and they will never, ever, stop. Despite the fact that it was heroism, loyalty, sovereignty, property, marriage, and paternalism that raised us out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, suffering, disease, child mortality, early death, the perils of the seasons and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life. We are but riders on the elephants of our evolutionary heritage embodied in our genes, and expressed in our physiology, and demonstrated in our behavior. Our though and speech is nothing more than a means of negotiating on behalf of those genes. By extraordinary effort we can develop the agency to reason – and not be controlled by the elephant, rather than intuit and feel – and be controlled by the elephant. The elephant does not tell us what is good. It tells us only how to compete in small bands of hunter gatherers. (Yes I am riffing off the obvious)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548948034 Timestamp) IQ AND WHY SMART PEOPLE AREN’T OFTEN RICH (from elsewhere)(archive) (or “wealth is a middle class occupation”) I think Molyneux did a pretty good job. Here is what I said in response to Taleb: —(a) g measures what we attempt to measure (b) chance of success corresponds to a distribution of traits, (c) plus the utility of those traits, in service of the population under the bell curve within 1 SD.— Which is the only answer that matters, and is something we have known for decades – it’s covered in the Millionaire Mind books and related research. But to an economists it’s fairly obvious. Smart folk don’t amass money that often because we already HAVE an asset. Smart people don’t need anything else to compete. They don’t need anything else to signal with. (I mean, ask andy how easy it is to intimidate, humiliate, or shut down the average person (idiot)) In fact, if you are very intelligent the skill we must learn is now NOT to make people feel stupid, humiliated, or shut down. So a little more color on the subject: People most likely to gain wealth are in the middle and upper middle classes. People least likely to gain wealth are in the lower classes. Our ‘aristocracy’ today tends to consist of relatively invisible academic financial and political families, rather than wealth for this reason. We live in a middle class VISIBLE world but with an INVISIBLE aristocracy. Why? Because you need to (a) be interested in (and not bored by) something (b) there are some number of people interested in, and (c) most people that you can serve are in the middle 2/3 of the curve. So knowing those OPERATIONAL RULES we would expect shortage at the bottom, a steep climb to 2/3, and shortage at the top. Which is what Taleb’s chart shows us. I mean, smart people have MANY, MANY Possible ways of being ‘successful’ (subjectively). For example: I can tell fairly easily that Andy Curzon and Noam Chomsky, or that category of people who can read anything and speak nine or ten languages – all have higher IQ’s than I do. And I can enumerate what each can do that is superior. My particular thing is that I don’t make mistakes, at the cost of limited lateral associations. I remember pretty much everything at the cost of short term memory. And I have trouble with more than one project at a time. But I will absolutely figure out any problem period, … given time to figure it out on my terms. These are not positive academic traits (rate of learning unrelated things, making one an exceptional manager, executive in every field), they are very positive lifetime traits (getting comparative advantage ‘right’ in high risk propositions.) So, for example, as Higgs (Higgs boson) said “I would never get hired by a university today because I work slowly”. And we are creating a large number of ‘sufficiently successful’ college graduates that find safety in jobs that are extra market (which is why you used to go to college – to find income outside of market forces – particularly government, law, medicine, and teaching). So Taleb’s observation is statistically truth and operationally false. Which is pretty much what I try to teach people: any claim that cannot be stated in operational language, is an act of fraud. So for example, no matter what I did,assuming we both invested in it, Andy would defeat me at chess (permutations of states), and Chomsky can give a long running detailed explanation of phenomenon without hesitation in search of words or phrasing (depth (or durability of short term memory) of ‘narrator, observer, searcher’ abilities – which is something that fascinates me). Because while I can undrestand it and imagine doing it I can’t do it – at least for any length of time – long enough time to complete with people like Andy, Chomsky, and say Stephen Fry is someone who comes to mind because of his lateral thinking ability. But here is the thing. Smart people (and I know very many of them) EXIT THE MARKET and live ‘normie lives’ because everything they can possibly want is obtainable under ‘normie’ conditions, an they can devote their spare time to their interests.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548891393 Timestamp) WHY? —“The argument that the right hasnt been doing it right and needs to learn from the Enemy because they evolve rapidly is outright wrong. The right has known for hundreds of years how to remove enemies. The issue isnt the application of force or the tactics involved. Its the balls to act [in concert at scale]. We suffer from either inaction or over action. People who want to sit around all day and hash and rehash and do nothing, or people who lash out in all directions and only accomplish getting their name on a federal watchlist and local police radars. Utilizing left wing tactics doesn’t give us any ground, it only dilutes any attempts at meaningful change.”—Dylan Knowles Organized. Concerted. Effort.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548890664 Timestamp) THE WORLD FAILS ONE CITY, ONE COUNTRY, AT A TIME. NOT IN A CRASH BUT A DECAY. —“I lived in Milan and Buenos Aires for a while in 1998 and 1999. Young people were more tied to their families and communities, but that was because they were BROKE and there were no decent jobs. I see the same behavior in the Millennial problems of today the problems of these places 20 years ago. Eking out an existence, living in the parents’ basement. Actually it is probably better than that in the US in a lot of cases now. But in Italy and Argentina things are generally worse.”—Michael Churchill