Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Right political correctness? That’s typical deceit by Pilpul. Left political cor

    Right political correctness? That’s typical deceit by Pilpul. Left political correctness (postmodern shaming) relies on falsehoods to mask unpleasant truths.

    Conservative shaming relies on truths to prevent involuntary transfers. Conservative morality suppresses imposition of costs (meritocracy), left pretense of morality attempts to justify involuntary transfer (theft). What could be obtained by trade (usually conformity for subsidy) is sought at a discount by shaming.

    In other words, it’s using Pilpul to cast the equivalency of shaming as an equivalence of actions – and that’s dishonest (actually, fraudulent).

    Conservative reciprocity versus classical liberal equality of opportunity, vs leftist equality of outcome, versus radical leftist harm to truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets as a means of rebellion against low social, sexual, economic, and political market value.

    It’s just class warfare between middle class (desirable) and underclass (undesirable) genes, with the left playing top and bottom expanding low trust against the high trust but shrinking middle.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 21:20:00 UTC

  • —“How did the concept of race begin?”–

    I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that cuases conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the biggers upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers

  • —“How did the concept of race begin?”–

    I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that cuases conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the biggers upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers

  • “Q:How did the concept of race begin?”— I think this is well understood so I d

    —“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”—

    I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However:

    HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER

    The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races.

    Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate.

    16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations.

    By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world.

    The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals.

    The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences.

    The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now.

    The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”.

    However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development.

    And that the primary difference between the races that causes conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the bigger upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means.

    So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms).

    So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place.

    The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think.

    Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 15:38:00 UTC

  • ORIGINS OF THE “INFANTILE GENERATION” As far as I know: 1) The last generation e

    ORIGINS OF THE “INFANTILE GENERATION”

    As far as I know:

    1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have tought this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has elminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood.

    2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers.

    3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt).

    4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market.

    5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor.

    6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party.

    I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity.

    Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 11:41:00 UTC

  • NEW TERRITORY Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situa

    NEW TERRITORY

    Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before.

    There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males.

    Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed.

    There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage.

    The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness bcause of it and greater care needed in old age because of it.

    And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection.

    The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males.

    The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment.

    Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women.

    Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men.

    This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing childreen and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do.

    Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered houshold with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women.

    None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political dominatino of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 19:07:00 UTC

  • LEFT(F) -VS- RIGHT(M) BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES The more left(feminine) we intuit t

    LEFT(F) -VS- RIGHT(M) BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack.

    Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary.

    And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant

    But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass.

    And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism.

    So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight.

    So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all.

    The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 13:41:00 UTC

  • More evidence lately that the Saan people of South Africa have the oldest contin

    More evidence lately that the Saan people of South Africa have the oldest continuous genome.

    Saan are lighter skinned. I am sure it will play out in the future data, that we got BOTH lighter and darker as climate and disease resistance warranted.

    It is very easy to see asian and pacific features in the Saan. In other words, we use caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid, and negroid, all appear to fork from the Saan’s original genome, with caucasoids being the outlier, and northern europeans being the most outlying.

    Under certain circumstances we get bigger and taller east-west africa. And Under certain we get smaller and shorter (pygmys, the lost people of island east asia) and intelligence does decrease with cranial size – contrary to the (((fantasies))) of Gould.

    We do not always evolve but also devolve. Because autraloids have not only lost technology they previously held, but it appears that they have lost cognitive parity with their ancestors (I think we will be able to measure that by the middle of this century.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 09:37:00 UTC

  • The 90% Percent of The Ancient World that Was Pagan Did Not Welcome the Destruction by The Christians

    It’s not that the majority pagan peoples of the ancient world, enjoyed the destruction of their letters, arts, architecture, and monuments by gleeful underclass animals bringing ruination then as the radical islamists and jewish activists bring ruination now. They felt as we felt. The difference is that they couldn’t imagine that they’d get an emperor that would betray them as a means of defeating the western roman empire and turning her own underclass people against her – as is being done to us today via immigration of hostile underclasses.

  • The 90% Percent of The Ancient World that Was Pagan Did Not Welcome the Destruction by The Christians

    It’s not that the majority pagan peoples of the ancient world, enjoyed the destruction of their letters, arts, architecture, and monuments by gleeful underclass animals bringing ruination then as the radical islamists and jewish activists bring ruination now. They felt as we felt. The difference is that they couldn’t imagine that they’d get an emperor that would betray them as a means of defeating the western roman empire and turning her own underclass people against her – as is being done to us today via immigration of hostile underclasses.