Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ANSWERING THE HARD QUESTION –“Q: Are there any legitimate weaknesses of capital

    ANSWERING THE HARD QUESTION
    –“Q: Are there any legitimate weaknesses of capitalism as an economic system?”–

    All economies are and always have been mixed economies and extreme attempts at economies always fail for reasons we understand.

    Because government is the world’s most profitable business, and governments are both the insurers of last resort and investors of last resort and as such government investment in production (not consumption) will produce strategic advantage where it’s possible.

    We seek a consistent government-economic relationship because it reduces our adaptive burden allowing us to maximize personal consumption in time.

    Yet the distribution of private-sector state production of anything is dependent upon whether a population is in a state of plenty, going concern, or stress.

    The primary problem of the twentieth century was the mixture of the false promise of endless growth in population and economy, with the adaoption of intergenerational transfer instead of intergenerational savings. This is why the developed world MUST collapse.

    We list the spectrum of political biases without explaining that the only thing that matters is rule of law to protect against extreme economies on one hand, and to allow us to shift between economies as needed on the other. Oddly americans are better at this becuase of the general prohibition on state power outside of warfare and crisis. And that is the correct division of labor. But the left wants to violate the laws of nature in the material world just as they do so by social construction of words in the imaginary world. And that’s never possible. It’s just endemic in the feminine mind.

    Capitalism without rule of law is private sector privatization of public capital incentivizing private corruption exhausting incentives (today) and destroying the legitimacy of the government, just as socialism-communism is public sector socialization of private capital, producing public sector corruption, destroying incentives for production, and destroying government legitimacy.

    We have just about the best system but our rule of law is insufficient for defense against private sector corruption (the financial sector and the global business sector) as well as public sector corruption (the credentialist elites).

    Both of those problems are easily fixed by law with the power to force the adoption of those laws into the constitution and law.

    LIST:
    Capitalism: bias to the private sector in the production of goods services information.
    Classical Liberalism: Redistribution of the proceeds of private sector production to the production of commons lowering indirect costs while preserving direct costs. Maximizing incentives for all.
    Democratic Socialism: Redistribution of the proceeds of private sector production for the public consumption of goods services and information.
    Fascism: State Direction of Private Production for Strategic Purposes lowering direct returns on private production to produce indirect returns for the population.
    Socialism: bias to the public sector for the production of goods services and information at the cost of incentive for private production and returns on capital.

    Neither anarchism or communism are possible so they aren’t worth discussing.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-06 18:20:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798782043125399552

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798609370194067678

  • THE SOVIET SECULAR INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF FEMININE > JEWISH > ABRAHAMIC SOCIAL

    THE SOVIET SECULAR INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF FEMININE > JEWISH > ABRAHAMIC SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF LYING
    I have researched and documented the evolution of the feminine means of undermining, social construction, and inversion of objectively true/false with preferentially good/bad, through to the abrahamic religions and the marxist sequence.

    But I underestimated the soviets as the first time an entire government had been capable of adopting the female strategy of social construction of undermining and sewing conflict using institutional organization of the use of modern communications to ‘uneducate’ people so to speak.

    And it’s terrifying that this feminine means of coercion is so difficult to defend against in a high trust society like the west that favors free speech – under the presumption it’s not industrialized lying defended by the institutions of state, or organized religion (church, temple, universities).

    And how difficult is defense against the feminine means of social warfare while preserving free speech, when the moral intuition of the masculine is paternal demand for individual responsibility and the feminine is to demand tolerance for irresponsibility, which only serves to bait a population into hazard, generate class conflict, and generate demand for authority, that as a consequence succeeds by eliminating freedom of speech that made that sedition and authority possible?

    The only solution I know of is ‘free reciprocal and truthful speech that does not encourage irresponsibility for the private and common’ and as such does not sew the seeds of justification for discontent, bait people into hazard of irresponsibility, causing redistributive parasitism, generating demand for authority that reverses freedom of speech, sovereignty, reciprocity, responsibility, and voluntary cooperation, and the prosperity that would have resulted had those demands not been reversed.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-05 03:38:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798197750388891648

  • GREEN VS FAUCI – AND, WELL, THOUGHTS OF PERJURY… In the political sphere, I fo

    GREEN VS FAUCI – AND, WELL, THOUGHTS OF PERJURY…
    In the political sphere, I follow war, economics, legislation and law. I don’t follow politics because, well, it’s Kabuki theatre and intellectually embarrassing.
    And I don’t know many of the show-women in particular other than as cardboard cutouts for socially constructed propaganda.
    But I am vaguely aware of the name “Marjorie Taylor Greene” as the target of Nancy Pelosi volumes of criticism.
    However, I just saw of clip of her interrogating Fauci, and .. she is an attack dog of the most vicious disposition – and while I don’t favor treating witnesses as hostile, because it leads to accusation as if it’s testimony, this is a case where it’s necessary to circumvent evasion. And she was competent at it.
    So, I don’t know more than that but I was pretty comfortable watching that man, who like too many ‘scientists’ who are public facing, ‘testifies to the untestifiable’ in order to obtain attention, financing, and to manipulate a public that did not and still does not understand the volume of propaganda, pseudoscience and ‘hyperbole’ that gushed from the mouths, pens, and keyboards of too many people who call themselves scientists – and two few of whom are held to the criteria of testifiablilty, who should now be prosecuted for public perjury.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-04 20:59:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798097203015168000

  • PREVENTING ZOMBIE CONSTITUTIONALISM REQUIRES CARE AND FEEDING OF THAT CONSTITUTI

    PREVENTING ZOMBIE CONSTITUTIONALISM REQUIRES CARE AND FEEDING OF THAT CONSTITUTION – OFTEN BY PATRIOTS
    —“There is a serious danger in the myth of zombie constitutionalism. There is great power in the traditions and heritage of our nation that were codified into the Constitution, and we should continue to rally around them, but the document itself will no save us.”– @AuronMcintyre

    Blackstone’s Commentaries, The Federalist Papers, the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are incomplete.

    There are about major eight holes in the constitution because the founders assumed the aristocratic tradition, the common law and christian faith, and the clarification of those holes is non trivial but possible – I’ve done most of the work.

    That said the constitution is the closest effort a scientific government possible, and european (especially anglo-germanic) traditionalism is the closest to political empiricism possible: because (a) commonality in common law (dissent), (b) concurrency in voting legislation (assent) (c) sovereignty of the people not the government and (d) the right to bear arms to replace it.

    We can update that constitution to cover the original holes and address the subsequent ‘crimes’. And we can add our group strategy to it so that it is founded in a purpose.

    For traditionalists (meaning government by empirical evidence of the behavior of mankind) we must understand, that there is no other way of concretely persisting anything of any precision in the modern world other than constitutional declarations, the science that justifies them, and the group strategy we seek to fulfill – then reinforced by repetition in the governent and the courts, and in application in daily life.

    The only thing that will save us is prosecution of those who fail to defend it, as well as those who transgress against it, and the only way to do that is a market for that suppression and that market is the court of common law.

    (PS: And you’re a smart guy Auron)

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @AuronMacintyre

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-04 19:27:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798074144376193024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798014027580191188

  • THE DIFFERENCE IN “EQUALITY” OVER TIME –“Q: How does the greek (athenian) conce

    THE DIFFERENCE IN “EQUALITY” OVER TIME
    –“Q: How does the greek (athenian) concept of equality differ from the christian, founding fathers, and the contemporary concepts of equality?”–

    Simple Version: Participation by demonstrated responsibility for private and common.

    HISTORY
    The concept of equality has evolved significantly from ancient Athens to the contemporary era, reflecting different philosophical, cultural, and political influences:

    1. Athenian Concept of Equality
    Athenian Democracy (5th Century BCE):
    (Meritocracy)

    Political Equality (Isonomia): The Athenian concept of equality primarily referred to political equality among free male citizens. Isonomia meant equality before the law, where all citizens had the right to participate in the political process, such as voting in the assembly, holding public office, and serving on juries.
    Exclusivity: This concept of equality was highly exclusive. It did not extend to women, slaves, or foreigners (metics). Only a minority of the population (free Athenian males) enjoyed these rights.
    Direct Democracy: Athenian democracy was direct, meaning citizens participated personally in decision-making rather than through elected representatives.

    2. Christian Concept of Equality
    Christian Doctrine (1st Century CE onwards):
    (Bringing In The Lower Classes)

    Spiritual Equality: Christianity introduced the idea of spiritual equality, emphasizing that all humans are equal in the eyes of God. This is rooted in the belief that all people are created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and have inherent worth.
    Moral and Ethical Equality: Christianity promotes the notion that everyone should be treated with love and respect, as exemplified by the teachings of Jesus, such as the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
    Non-Exclusivity: Universal Inclusivity: Unlike the Athenian concept, Christian equality is universal, extending to all people regardless of gender, social status, or ethnicity. This idea laid the groundwork for later social justice movements, although its implementation has varied historically.

    3. Founding Fathers’ Concept of Equality
    American Founding Fathers (18th Century):
    (Shifting to the Middle Classes Distribution of Power)

    Exclusivity: Initially, this concept was limited in practice to Free European Christian Men demostrating capacity for responsibility to ownership of property – meaning productivity. Slavery persisted, and women and non-property-owning men were excluded from many political rights.
    Natural Rights and Equality: The Founding Fathers, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, posited that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
    Legal and Political Equality: The American Revolution emphasized legal and political equality, particularly the idea that government should derive its power from the consent of the governed, ensuring that laws applied equally to all citizens.

    4. Contemporary Concepts of EqualityZ
    Modern Liberal Democracies:
    (Undermining Meritocracy, Responsibility, and Coherence, by Restoring. Authority)
    Equality Before the Law: Modern democracies uphold the principle that all individuals should be treated equally under the law, with protections against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and other characteristics.
    Equality of Opportunity: Contemporary views on equality often emphasize equality of opportunity, where individuals should have the same chances to succeed, regardless of their background. This includes access to education, employment, and political participation.
    Social and Economic Equality: There is also a growing emphasis on reducing social and economic inequalities. This includes efforts to address income disparity, healthcare access, and social justice through policies like affirmative action, social welfare programs, and progressive taxation.
    Counter-Responsibility: Intersectionality: Contemporary equality concepts consider “intersectionality”, acknowledging that people can face multiple, overlapping forms of discrimination and disadvantage, rather than demand for integration and participation and status by demonstrated responsibility.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-04 17:57:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798051479229796355

  • THE DIFFERENCE IN “EQUALITY” OVER TIME –“Q: How does the greek (athenian) conce

    THE DIFFERENCE IN “EQUALITY” OVER TIME
    –“Q: How does the greek (athenian) concept of equality differ from the christian, founding fathers, and the contemporary concepts of equality?”–

    The concept of equality has evolved significantly from ancient Athens to the contemporary era, reflecting different philosophical, cultural, and political influences:

    1. Athenian Concept of Equality
    Athenian Democracy (5th Century BCE):
    (Meritocracy)

    Political Equality (Isonomia): The Athenian concept of equality primarily referred to political equality among free male citizens. Isonomia meant equality before the law, where all citizens had the right to participate in the political process, such as voting in the assembly, holding public office, and serving on juries.
    Exclusivity: This concept of equality was highly exclusive. It did not extend to women, slaves, or foreigners (metics). Only a minority of the population (free Athenian males) enjoyed these rights.
    Direct Democracy: Athenian democracy was direct, meaning citizens participated personally in decision-making rather than through elected representatives.

    2. Christian Concept of Equality
    Christian Doctrine (1st Century CE onwards):
    (Bringing In The Lower Classes)

    Spiritual Equality: Christianity introduced the idea of spiritual equality, emphasizing that all humans are equal in the eyes of God. This is rooted in the belief that all people are created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and have inherent worth.
    Moral and Ethical Equality: Christianity promotes the notion that everyone should be treated with love and respect, as exemplified by the teachings of Jesus, such as the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
    Non-Exclusivity: Universal Inclusivity: Unlike the Athenian concept, Christian equality is universal, extending to all people regardless of gender, social status, or ethnicity. This idea laid the groundwork for later social justice movements, although its implementation has varied historically.

    3. Founding Fathers’ Concept of Equality
    American Founding Fathers (18th Century):
    (Shifting to the Middle Classes Distribution of Power)

    Exclusivity: Initially, this concept was limited in practice to Free European Christian Men demostrating capacity for responsibility to ownership of property – meaning productivity. Slavery persisted, and women and non-property-owning men were excluded from many political rights.
    Natural Rights and Equality: The Founding Fathers, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, posited that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
    Legal and Political Equality: The American Revolution emphasized legal and political equality, particularly the idea that government should derive its power from the consent of the governed, ensuring that laws applied equally to all citizens.

    4. Contemporary Concepts of Equality
    Modern Liberal Democracies:
    (Undermining Meritocracy, Responsibility, and Coherence, by Restoring. Authority)
    Equality Before the Law: Modern democracies uphold the principle that all individuals should be treated equally under the law, with protections against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and other characteristics.
    Equality of Opportunity: Contemporary views on equality often emphasize equality of opportunity, where individuals should have the same chances to succeed, regardless of their background. This includes access to education, employment, and political participation.
    Social and Economic Equality: There is also a growing emphasis on reducing social and economic inequalities. This includes efforts to address income disparity, healthcare access, and social justice through policies like affirmative action, social welfare programs, and progressive taxation.
    Counter-Responsibility: Intersectionality: Contemporary equality concepts consider intersectionality, acknowledging that people can face multiple, overlapping forms of discrimination and disadvantage.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-04 17:54:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798050680063827968

  • GIVEN THE CRITERIA FOR WHITENESS, ARE RUSSIANS WHITE? –Q: Curt: “Are Russians W

    GIVEN THE CRITERIA FOR WHITENESS, ARE RUSSIANS WHITE?

    –Q: Curt: “Are Russians White?”–
    This is a great question because of the present crisis the behavior of their government, and the practical problem the government has, of a small population policing eleven time zones of unproductive agrarian land, but rich resources for extraction and the consequential resource curse, which only encourages state authoritarianism.

    So Russians have the real problem of heterogeneous empires – and unfortunately, while the west doesn’t mind it applied to the less developed lands and less developed people and certainly applied against the less developed cancer that is islam, the wish to expand their totalitarianism westward into more developed populations instead of eastward and southward into less, is not something the rest of us can tolerate.

    Instead, we had been waiting and hoping that the Russians, like the soviets did, and like the Chinese did, like the Iranians are, and like the north Koreans, will ‘run out of runway’ by their inability to compete with a middle class large enough to produce participatory government, rule of law, and consumer capitalism.

    Even if China has demonstrated that a state that acts like a venture capitalist on top of rule of law and consumer capitalism can outperform the entrepreneurial nations, by that restoration of the public private partnership, instead of the socialist state monopoly or the anglo private monopoly. In other words, the San Francisco Private Equity most corresponds to the responsibility of the monarchies, in producing public private partnerships that produce a competitive advantage.

    So are Russians White? They are, but they are underdeveloped. Why? They were conquered by the mongols, only ended serfdom(slavery) in the late 1800s, and returned to serfdom under the soviets, and then descendeed into anarchy and gangsterism in the 90s, and have retained that ‘insecure’ disposition, by not developing a middle class that is responsible for demanding both public and private responsibility, despite the adoption of christianity.
    In other words there is nothing preventing them from European peerage except (a) the existing government is brutally parasitic upon the people (b) a new government that develops a middle class, (c) an independent judiciary and sherrifs (instead of the secret police) that insures it, (e) and the development of high trust norms -which they do not presently have (f) including the eradication of the jewish > communist > soviet > Putinesque use of propaganda for social construction of falsehoods that affects both them and the west by creating duality between what is true and what is allowed to be spoken.

    We have a similar problem in the west in that we must also eliminate the jewish > communist > soviet > cultural marxist > sex marxist > race marxist migration of the german jewish communist leadership to the west and the jewish conquest into academy, media, and state (the talking classes) using it, combined with willing males that sought power through it, and females that are more than willing if not thrilled to favor this social construction and sedition that destroys western civilizations’ demand for maximum personal responsibility truth and duty both private and public.

    Which is why our standard of life has been and may still be, envious: middle class majority with middle class ethics, because of genetics, culture, and institutions, of middle class ethics. … which is something the greeks were happy to explain 2500 years ago… 😉

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @poppydoggo29966

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-04 17:40:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798047245780312064

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798039977378668830

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUPERIORITY VS SUPREMACY Apologies in advance but it need

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUPERIORITY VS SUPREMACY
    Apologies in advance but it needs to be said:

    White superiority is an empirically demonstrated fact in every dimension of measurement we have discovered. But white supremacy is either a suggestion of either (a) an ambition to rule others, (b) a suggestion of responsibility for governing those less able, or (c) a false accusation against superiority – or all three.

    But whites have learned by (a) repeated attempts to rule the south eurasians, (b) centuries of colonialism world wide, (c) postwar attempts at ending the warfare of empires by domestication into human rights, reciprocal trade, and sovereign borders, (d) and post 1960 experiments with immigration, that non-whites cannot be ruled into equality, governed into equality, incentivized into equality, or assimilated into equality.

    Instead all attempts at domesticating non whites in large numbers have found they are destroyers of genetic, institutional, cultural capital, and the high trust norms, manners, ethics, and morals, in both display, word, and deed – that through self-domestication and genetic pacification, whites have produced, while at the same time maintaining the maximum Individual responsibility for reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means that we call freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, and the innovation adaptation evolution and progress in prosperity that results.

    And outside of small numbers of the middle and upper classes who fully integrate because they are unable to form subcultures, no other people demonstrates the will or capacity to achieve that equality that whites achieve with one another. This is not an opinion it is the evidence of twenty five hundred years of experiments at equality that have always failed.

    And so whites are giving up on the false promise of the Christian sedition of universalism an like the Chinese and Japanese and Koreans who are our only near peers, deciding that separation by great walls and oceans is the only means of both self defense and incentive for others to self domesticate as well.

    Good intentions are irrelevant in matters of domestication.

    WHAT DOES WHITE MEAN? (NOT CAUCASIAN)
    What means that (a) your genetics consist of early European hunter gatherer genetics from Spain to the Urals and north to the ob river. Your traditions include our traditional pagan mythos, their evolution into greek philosophy, and their combination with and germanization of christianity, and our reformation of our philosophy and christianity into the natural sciences and natural law.
    In other words, you must be Genetically, Behaviorally, and Culturally European.

    RACES: GENETICS OF RACE (SUBSPECIES)
    Unfortunately prior to genetics we did not understand the evolutionary adaptation of the human subspecies into what we call races. Now that we know those genetics the answer is relatively obvious. (Note: by any other criteria human races are subspecies. However, a species practices in-group selection. Humans do practice in-group selection but, humans are also the most adaptive life form, so human (or at least male) reproductive plasticity is beyond adaptive into the absurd as human males at least will attempt to mate with anything from animals to trees and everything else.)

    HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY SEQUENCE
    1) African and the African coastal diaspora through to Australia: speciation event in the east African rift valley.
    2) South Eurasian from the north west coast of Africa, to the northeast coast of India: speciation event in the then dry Persian Gulf.
    … 3) Afro Asiatics (Arabs, Jews, Levantines). The semitic language is an afro asiatic langauge that evolved either in east Africa or along the red sea.
    … 3) India consists of at least three migrations of which only two are commonly visible. The out of africa coastal dispersal (ASI), the early ‘iranics’ farmers, and the later ‘steppe iranics’. The Harappans were (IVC) were largely early iranic farmers. There is a small european and caucasian yamnaya contribution that accompanied the steppe herders.
    … 4) Caucasians are one of the western dispersals of south eurasians. Persian Gulf -> Iran -> caucuses -> Anatolia. They fan out along the regions of water, counter-clockwise from the dry Persian gulf to Mesopotamia and clockwise from Iran to India to the Caucuses to Anatolia and into Europe. And then northward as technology allowed them to handle the cold producing the Ancestral North Eurasians.
    4) East Asian from the Tibetan plateau, to the pacific isles, to the northeast tip of Siberia. Speciation event is the Tibetan Plateau (we think): Persian gulf -> Iran -> India -> Tibet -> East Asia.
    … 5) Pacific islanders through to australia followed the coastal route – possibly because east africa developed the ‘modern human with modern full kit’ so to speak which included fishing, and fishing is a highly stable source of food.
    … 6) Amerindians are a hybridization of ancestral north eurasians (now extinct but early west eurasians). Speciation event in beringia before moving into the americas.
    7) European from the ob river, to the Urals, to the black sea, to the Spanish coast. Speciation event is along the ice. But europeans are an admixture of the spectrum of Early European Hunter Gatherers (Western, Scandinavian, Eastern), some introgression of Anatolian farmers, and strong introgression of steppe herders (eastern European can caucasian hunter gatherers.)
    Dry Persian Gulf -> Anatolia -> Europe AND caucuses-> Europe. Europeans are a ‘young’ race. A product of the ice ages.

    WHY? RACE, GROUP STRATEGY, CIVILIZATION, RELIGION, CULTURE
    The reason these differences matter.

    1) BEHAVIOR
    The spread of mankind into east Africa and out of Africa followed the continuation of the single most important direction of human evolution: “neoteny”, or what we call in our livestock, “domestication syndrome”, meaning the prolongation of childhood neuralotical adaptation resulting in prolongation of cooperatively, by slowing of maturity and limiting the depth of maturity producing longer development times producing higher self regulation and agency – a trade off between aggression and domestication.
    However, the result of this domestication syndrome is not only visible in rates of gestation, development, and maturity, but also in morphology and lifespan. And even more so, this domestication syndrome is visible in the rather large differences between Africa, South Eurasian, European, and east asian intelligence and rates of cultural invention, adaptation, evolution.

    2) INSTITUTIONS
    So it should not surprise us that Race (subspecies), Civilization, Religion, Institutions, Culture, Norms, are dramatically different between races, civilizations, and ethnicities, because institutions traditions and norms must serve the median of the distribution of the population. Because that is the majority of the population that must adhere to those institutions.
    As such, east asian and European mandate for self regulation of impulsivity. And given there is a full standard deviation between europeans (100), east asians (105+) and south eurasians (low 80s), and Africans (mid 70’s), there is a demand for different degrees of normalcy despite the extremely high costs of lower capacity for self regulation and lower capacity for intellectual adaptation.

    TEMPERAMENT
    Temperament Traits by Region

    East Asians:
    Self-Regulation: Very High
    Aggression: Low
    Compliance with Social Norms: High
    Cultural Factors: Emphasis on discipline, group harmony, and respect for authority

    Europeans:
    Self-Regulation: High
    Aggression: Moderate
    Compliance with Social Norms: Variable
    Cultural Factors: Emphasis on individualism, self-expression, and personal freedom

    Caucasus Populations:
    Self-Regulation: Moderate
    Aggression: Variable
    Compliance with Social Norms: Moderate to High
    Cultural Factors: Emphasis on family, community ties, and respect for tradition

    South Asians (India):
    Self-Regulation: Moderate
    Aggression: Variable
    Compliance with Social Norms: High
    Cultural Factors: Emphasis on family, hierarchical social structures, and respect for tradition

    South Eurasians:
    North Africans:Self-Regulation: Moderate
    Aggression: Variable
    Compliance with Social Norms: High
    Cultural Factors: Emphasis on family, community, and respect for authority

    Middle Eastern Populations:
    Self-Regulation: Moderate
    Aggression: Variable
    Compliance with Social Norms: High
    Cultural Factors: Emphasis on family, honor, and social cohesion

    Sub-Saharan Africans:
    Self-Regulation: Low
    Aggression: Variable
    Compliance with Social Norms: High in some regions, Variable in others
    Cultural Factors: Emphasis on community, extended family networks, and oral traditions

    EQUALITY
    Equality is only possible within a polity of similar genetic, institutional, and cultural composition and therefore by internal regulation while trading across borders with others for goods, services, and information.

    Proximity is conflict.

    Don’t Shoot The Messenger
    Sorry
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-03 23:00:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797765356431278080

  • Apologies in advance but it needs to be said: White superiority is an empiricall

    Apologies in advance but it needs to be said:

    White superiority is an empirically demonstrated fact in every dimension of measurement possible. But white supremacy is either a suggestion of responsibility for those less able, or a false accusation against superiority or both, And whites have learned by centuries of colonialism, postwar attempts at domestication into human rights, reciprocal trade, and sovereign borders, and post 1960 immigration, that non whites cannot be governed into equality, incentivized into equality, or assimilated into equality – and instead they are destroyers of genetic, institutional, cultural capital, and the high trust norms manners ethics and morals in both display word and deed, that through self domestication and genetic pacification whites have produced while at the same time maintaining maximum Individual responsibility for reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means that we call freedom, liberty, and sovereignty.
    And outside of small numbers of the upper classes who are unable to form subcultures, no other people demonstrates will or capacity to achieve that equality that we achieve with one another.
    This is not an opinion it is the evidence of twenty five hundred years of experiments at equality that have always failed. And so whites are giving up on the false promise of the Christian sedition of universalism an like the Chinese and Japanese and Koreans who are our only near peers, deciding that great walls and oceans and separation is the only means of both self defense and incentive for others to self domesticate as well. Good intentions are irrelevant in matters of domestication.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-03 19:04:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797705994039869440

  • Dr Michael Levin (@drmichaellevin), (All); Great Paper. Thanks for open access.

    Dr Michael Levin (@drmichaellevin), (All);

    Great Paper. Thanks for open access. (Really.)

    And of course I agree that Dr Levin’s work, demonstrating the influence of electromagnetic charge, which serves to illustrate that evolution not only finds a way, but it finds every way possible to assist life evolve complexity. This added dimension of causality caused me to update my own work.

    However, this paper gave me pause. And it’s not necessarily negative feedback about this paper, which is correct, even given Michael’s tendency to apply the utility of professorial attention-seeking of students (and readers) by implication of wonder to that which would better be stated without it. 😉

    Michael Levin (@drmichaellevin) from Tufts has just published, Andrew Budson (@abudson) from BU and Harvard has just published. And I could list a dozen more attempts at exposition in popular science – most of which are tragically embarassing. But Jeff Hawkins (@JeffCHawkins) at Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience and founder of Numenta (and inventor of the Palm Pilot) has been working with these ideas for almost two decades. And while I started writing neural networks on “ancient iron” using assembly language, I’d say most of the innovation that I rely on when I teach the foundations of cognition is based upon his synthesis of neuroscience.

    The only rather fascinating aspect of LLM’s is the use of brute force, using massive volumes of text, and massively expensive computing power (and energy), to make use of the ordinary grammar, consisting of (a) the first principle of the universe’s evolution: continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order, into (b) continuous recursive organization of bodily movements, (c) into continuous recursive disambiguation of navigational way-finding, (d) into continuous recursive disambiguation of thinking (e) into continuous recursive disambiguation into speech as Chomsky’s ‘universal grammar’. A process itself which consists of evolutionary computation of complexity by continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order. 😉

    So it turns out that phrases, sentences, paragraphs, narratives, arguments, and proofs, are, by their grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) and thus their organization of references alone, in sufficient volume, are, specifications for actors, objects, spaces, backgrounds, possible actions and navigation through them: Episodes of all scales – whether concrete, imaginary, or abstract.

    But why does each generation of academics have to ‘rediscover’ that which we knew one or two generations before, then claim it’s a novel discovery?

    And what does that tell us about our education, disciplines, and institutions?

    In the eighties and nineties those of us who worked on the application of neuroscience and cognitive science to our futile attempts at artificial intelligence given the paucity of available memory, storage, and computing power explained the development of memory as an economy of connectivity within the biological ecology of the body. And when explaining memory’s behavior we used the development of traffic patterns before during and after the mass introduction of motor vehicles.

    I mean, we wrote mathematics, software, simulations, and games to illustrate it. Our problem, since the AI winter of the 1980s, which I was a part of, has always been hardware, and the remaining problem is still hardware – at least until the neuromorphic hardware revolution that’s been gradually developing out there produces a viable product – which will collapse the entire pre-calculated compute economy that’s animating the financial sector as we speak.

    Even Joscha Bach’s (@plinz) recent tweet “We finally have a theory of representation”, I find both true and odd, and a bit disturbing, because, between what we’ve understood by design of higher dimensional manifolds in mathematics, neural networks, simulations, and most obviously three dimensional real time simulations of the world (games), with their backgrounds, objects, actors, eye-head direction, body direction, movement direction, speed, bodily volume, and events, composed of triangles, surfaces, and reflectivity – and more so with hexagonal surface navigation: all of which are precisely what the hierarchy of the brain produces by precisely the same means: triangles. (and I’ll skip explaining why the universe has three dimensions plus time for the same reason – because that’s a whole different rat hole.)

    Around 2005 and 2006 I worked with team out of Microsoft one of whom had worked on the flight controls and navigation for the B2 Bomber which is impossible to fly without computer assistance, and another (like me) who was a quite sophisticated tools, software, and operating system architect. At that point, the use of graphics cards for vector processing had just been emerging. We discussed the model of the manifold, the use of threads of short and long term running agents (unlike LLM’s). We discussed the impact on Google’s search and revenue model.

    The problem was the amount of money necessary to produce both the software and the hardware. And I could not at that time ether (a) divert that much time from my existing businesses, (b) feel confident enough that we could raise that amount of money without producing a working model, which would take six months to a year full time by at least a small team. So we understood. … And we weren’t alone.

    As far as I know the most important information we’ve learned in neuroscience is the organization of the layers of the neocortex, the organization of micro columns, columns, how axons seek dendrites first through chemical signature and second though synchronicity, and the ‘insert, retrieve, update, delete cycle of axon, axon terminal, and dendritic computation’.

    After that all the valuable information that really mattered in understanding consciousness was the complexity of the hippocampal region in producing competition, coherence, parsimony, and indexing that could be used for long term association of such complex networks.

    And after that, and precisely the one thing – though likely quite obvious – that is left to explain, is ‘if that’s all neurons and nerves do, then what information are they transmitting that results in our conscious experience? “Memories of memories all the way down.”

    So the point I’m trying to make is perhaps less obvious: that in my work I continuously and disturbingly run across claims of insight and discovery that are from decades to generations if not centuries old.

    And that’s often because compartmentalization of disciplines has mandated ignorance, and the volume of nonsense publications obscures prior research in other fields.

    It’s far worse in technology because of the vast increases in the number of new people in each field on a regular basis has diluted knowledge to the point where every four years or so we produce a new generation of nerds who think they’re inventing, when all they are doing is compensating for – all too often – the absolutely horrific architecture of the browser and its means of running streams of text as software that never saw a compiler and for whom sufficient test cases to replace a complier are deleteriously costly.

    And don’t get me started on physics which is proud of it’s mathematical rigor without having the faintest idea what the foundations of mathematics consist of and the limits of mathematics vs computation and operation.

    At least in economics, we fail all the time, so we are extremely conscious of the limits of math. So physicists come to economics and tell us what we’re doing wrong. Mathematicians provide tools to physicists to enable them to do more. And those of us who work in the epistemology of such complex things, fail repeatedly to reform mathematics to take account for the superiority of computation and simulation in producing reducibility beyond that which mathematics cannot.

    After all the universe is discrete and mathematics … well, it doesn’t do that well. 😉

    Cheers
    CD

    Michael Levin’s new book isn’t available yet.
    Publications ( long list )
    This Topic:
    https://t.co/djRYBirr6o
    Papers:
    https://t.co/J24lnUpjkx
    Preprints: https://t.co/pMYR7QxUDd

    Andrew Budson
    https://t.co/1Gr5VERopr

    Reply addressees: @drmichaellevin

    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-03 00:20:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797423142895337472

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796477278169514472