Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Do White People Feel Uncomfortable When They Hear Non-whites Mention The Word “racist” Around Them?

    Because when a white person is called a racist, they understand (a) they are being alienated by the threat of violence (b) they are being alienated so that others can achieve self image by denigrating others, (c) they are aware that only european whites and east asians have succeeded in building high trust polities. (d) they are aware the critics are just hateful and envious.

    “No man is a hero to his debtors.”

    And the whole world is our debtor.

    We dragged makinkind one civilization at a time out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, tyranny, the vicissitudes of nature, and the uncertainty of a universe hostile to human life, and they resisted, kicking and screaming all the while. All these people are doing is kicking and screaming at being dragged out of their ancestral childhoods.

    A parent must never take the words of his teenagers seriously, any more than europeans must take the words of the underclasses seriously.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-white-people-feel-uncomfortable-when-they-hear-non-whites-mention-the-word-racist-around-them

  • How Does The Austrian Theory Of Business Cycles Explain The Tulip Bubble€?

    I’ll try to give you the best answer possible today.

    1. All humans flock to opportunities, exploit opportunities, and defect from flocking to opportunities as the opportunities are exhausted and other, more preferable, opportunities emerge.
    2. In this sense, all human economies seek disequilibrium, because it is only in disequilibrium that opportunities exist (If we ever managed equality then we will all be poor.)
    3. Without credit, opportunities cannot be exploited at the lowest possible price (discount) simply because either (a) scarcity of the monetary resource, and (b) extraction of profits (premiums) and ‘Rents’ by savers.

      ( This topic is a significant point of contention, if not the central point of contention. The Right’s position [and mine] is that it’s not clear that earning money from your savings is necessary or beneficial – only that it not be deflated. The Left/Keynesians hold the position that you do not even have any right to the stored value of your savings. The l|Libertarian position is that you have a right to ‘seek rents’ as an investor using your savings. The libertarian is decidedly false since that is the means by which predatory subclasses have used high trust local norms to accumulate, centralize capital, and turn it against host peoples.)
    4. Credit (Promise of future repayment) assists in more people flocking to opportunities, exploiting those opportunities faster, but also defecting from those opportunities more slowly, and ending those opportunities not gradually but in a ‘bust’, leaving late defectors having lost their investments and unable to fulfill their promises.
    5. Therefore, the question has been, and remains, how much credit to provide at what price such that opportunities are exploited *by those able to exit* but not by people who *will not be able to exit*. While economic discourse appears difficult, this is actually the central question. The answer is relatively simple, in that if we are financing a shift from one network of specialization and trade to another, then that is reducing the unnecessary friction, or if we are creating opportunity for unskilled risk, and therefore creating a moral hazard (trap).

      (This topic is a significant point of contention, because it leaves most consumers out of the ‘lottery’ that loose credit can create, and out of the temporary consumption that loose credit creates, and produces a moral hazard for banks and credit institutions, by forcing them to lend money during booms to stay in business then creating waves of bankruptcies during the consequential corrections.)
    6. There are very few substantive questions in economics. (a) The means of calculating credit price and availability is one, (b) whether we can bypass the financial sector and provide liquidity directly to citizens(consumers) without simply having landlords and creditors absorb the profits now going to the financial sector, (c) the third is purely ethical and moral: and that is, do we return to intergenerational lending (all of human history until the keynesians), so that there is a good reason to provide income on savings, or do we continue extraction of rents through the financial system by charging the citizenry to borrow against their own production, or do we, as above, end the unnecessary distribution of credit capacity (and interest) for consumer consumption by just bypassing the financial sector altogether. Every other question in economics a derivative of these questions – or it is simply the use of economic analysis to investigate demonstrated human behavior, given that the (soft) social sciences (pseudosciences) of psychology, sociology, and political ‘science’ have failed to produce any repeatable scientific findings by means of self reporting or direct testing.

    Therefore, the Tulip Bubble is just a nice simple example that we use to illustrate how consumers can borrow money to invest in what they don’t understand and lose it.

    There are thousands of other examples, particularly in the new world, but the Tulip Bulb Bubble is more helpful because it communicates to average people that they too are vulnerable to malincentives, not just people with much more money.

    In other words, invest in what you do and know, and otherwise invest in index funds. In other words, Just as Little Red Riding Hood is a lesson to young girls who would do improper things for money are certain times, the Tulip Bulb serves as a parable for consumers – do what you know, and only what you know.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Austrian-theory-of-business-cycles-explain-the-tulip-bubble

  • What Is The Epistemology Of Austrian Economics?

    The Correct Answer

    There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.

    Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.

    Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.

    I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.

    There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.

    1. The moral question of whether investors have a right to appreciation of a currency or even right of defense against a currency. Mises/Rothbard’s whole program was yes, but the answer is no.
    2. Whether or not the good produced by the constant destruction of the value of a currency, as a means of increasing consumption in order to increase employment in order to increase overall economic velocity -outweighs the bad of consistent overextension of the boom bust cycle , and whether that over extension will eventually lead to (a) collapse, and (b) lost opportunity for innovation, adaptation, and productivity rather than booms and busts. As far as I know the answer is no.
    3. That does not mean that the answer ist o preserve savings – it means that the means of increasing employment is not credit but direct distribution of liquidity to consumers to do what they will, rather than trying to force that liquidity to consumers through the financial and business sectors.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-epistemology-of-Austrian-economics

  • How Does The Austrian Theory Of Business Cycles Explain The Tulip Bubble€?

    I’ll try to give you the best answer possible today.

    1. All humans flock to opportunities, exploit opportunities, and defect from flocking to opportunities as the opportunities are exhausted and other, more preferable, opportunities emerge.
    2. In this sense, all human economies seek disequilibrium, because it is only in disequilibrium that opportunities exist (If we ever managed equality then we will all be poor.)
    3. Without credit, opportunities cannot be exploited at the lowest possible price (discount) simply because either (a) scarcity of the monetary resource, and (b) extraction of profits (premiums) and ‘Rents’ by savers.

      ( This topic is a significant point of contention, if not the central point of contention. The Right’s position [and mine] is that it’s not clear that earning money from your savings is necessary or beneficial – only that it not be deflated. The Left/Keynesians hold the position that you do not even have any right to the stored value of your savings. The l|Libertarian position is that you have a right to ‘seek rents’ as an investor using your savings. The libertarian is decidedly false since that is the means by which predatory subclasses have used high trust local norms to accumulate, centralize capital, and turn it against host peoples.)
    4. Credit (Promise of future repayment) assists in more people flocking to opportunities, exploiting those opportunities faster, but also defecting from those opportunities more slowly, and ending those opportunities not gradually but in a ‘bust’, leaving late defectors having lost their investments and unable to fulfill their promises.
    5. Therefore, the question has been, and remains, how much credit to provide at what price such that opportunities are exploited *by those able to exit* but not by people who *will not be able to exit*. While economic discourse appears difficult, this is actually the central question. The answer is relatively simple, in that if we are financing a shift from one network of specialization and trade to another, then that is reducing the unnecessary friction, or if we are creating opportunity for unskilled risk, and therefore creating a moral hazard (trap).

      (This topic is a significant point of contention, because it leaves most consumers out of the ‘lottery’ that loose credit can create, and out of the temporary consumption that loose credit creates, and produces a moral hazard for banks and credit institutions, by forcing them to lend money during booms to stay in business then creating waves of bankruptcies during the consequential corrections.)
    6. There are very few substantive questions in economics. (a) The means of calculating credit price and availability is one, (b) whether we can bypass the financial sector and provide liquidity directly to citizens(consumers) without simply having landlords and creditors absorb the profits now going to the financial sector, (c) the third is purely ethical and moral: and that is, do we return to intergenerational lending (all of human history until the keynesians), so that there is a good reason to provide income on savings, or do we continue extraction of rents through the financial system by charging the citizenry to borrow against their own production, or do we, as above, end the unnecessary distribution of credit capacity (and interest) for consumer consumption by just bypassing the financial sector altogether. Every other question in economics a derivative of these questions – or it is simply the use of economic analysis to investigate demonstrated human behavior, given that the (soft) social sciences (pseudosciences) of psychology, sociology, and political ‘science’ have failed to produce any repeatable scientific findings by means of self reporting or direct testing.

    Therefore, the Tulip Bubble is just a nice simple example that we use to illustrate how consumers can borrow money to invest in what they don’t understand and lose it.

    There are thousands of other examples, particularly in the new world, but the Tulip Bulb Bubble is more helpful because it communicates to average people that they too are vulnerable to malincentives, not just people with much more money.

    In other words, invest in what you do and know, and otherwise invest in index funds. In other words, Just as Little Red Riding Hood is a lesson to young girls who would do improper things for money are certain times, the Tulip Bulb serves as a parable for consumers – do what you know, and only what you know.

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Austrian-theory-of-business-cycles-explain-the-tulip-bubble

  • GENETIC COMPOSITION OF EGYPTIANS (HINT: You want to have either Phoenician, Pers

    GENETIC COMPOSITION OF EGYPTIANS

    (HINT: You want to have either Phoenician, Persian, or North Caucasian Genetics. The people who got there first did so for a reason.)

    There are two major admixture events that affected north africa.

    In historical order, Egyptians consist of about 45% late east africans, 45% South caucasians, and 10% Phoenicians.

    The last major migration out of africa was about 25000 years ago. Africa is best thought of as three or four separate “continents” due to its size and geography. The mediterranean, the desert, the ‘green band’ from west africa to ethiopia/Yemen, the inhospitable south, and the south/southeast coast.

    The civilization that developed on the trade route between ethiopia and yemen gave birth to that major migration. That migration “E”, spread north and then west into north africa.

    There was an admixture event between west eurasians (Caucasians “J1″) and these peoples. Current admixture (E+J1) is about even between the two. (An interesting nit is that it’s possible north africans domesticated cattle separately. )

    I am not sure of the admixture relationship between the Phoenicians and Berbers, although I am certain there are people in the world who know that. It’s not an area that I have studied. As I understand it the Phoenicians (east mediterraneans) contributed about ten percent to the current distribution.

    So between Red Sea origins, north African expansion, conquest by or integration with, south caucasians (people with black hair), and conquest by/integration with the Phoenicians (as well as some mixture because of the usual mediterranean trade), I think we understand most of the genetic history of North Africans.

    The Arab conquest of North Africa that destroyed North African, Egyptian, and Levantine civilizations left less genetic impression on these peoples than one would think.

    In my understanding, there has been negligible crossover between subsaharan africans and north africans because the desert and distance has been prohibitive.

    The Roman defeat of Carthage (west phoenicians) was a catastrophe for mankind just as the battle between Sparta and Athens, and between Germany(ie: sparta) and england(ie:athens) were catastrophes. We never seem to learn from history that the farmer-army and merchant-navy require each other to compete successfully.

    The Arab conquest was far worse however (as it was everywhere in the world), because islam is the last civilization to adjust to the end of the Abrahamic Dark Age and the Restoration of Science (the enlightenment) and the most resistant to it – and even if we are lucky, it will take another one to two hundred years of progress to bring north africa out of its current condition.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 21:29:00 UTC

  • As a contrary point of reference: I write entirely for free, and it is one of th

    As a contrary point of reference:

    I write entirely for free, and it is one of the principle reasons why I can write honestly and truthfully and without reservation on very controversial subjects: I have no malincentives to avoid.

    As far as I can tell, within a generation, the creative commons license will replace copyright, and in the interim the possibility of profiting from writing other than by winning the lottery of a script, will continue to decline. (And that market is rapidly declining).

    Even today, the primary output of paid work consists of little more than gossip within some tiny market for signal-information.

    In other words, as each of us travels along our journey, we seek gossip from others passing through the same frame as a means of confirming the virtue of our choices.

    The human world is very simple.

    The consequence of free information easily published and easily found, is the rapid falsification of the multitude of narratives, and we are not very far from collectively understanding that there exist as few as a thousand ideas and all of them are comprehensible.

    The only issue the mirror.

    We don’t always like the reflection.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 12:25:00 UTC

  • WHY SOME CIVILIZATIONS FAIL If you have been following me for a long enough time

    WHY SOME CIVILIZATIONS FAIL

    If you have been following me for a long enough time now that you should be able to observe that I am making a very technical argument that feels, and intuits, to be horrible or excessive to those trained in consensus, cooperation at all costs, literature and philosophy rather than physics, economics, and calculation.

    In my understanding the ‘sympathetic’ properties of traditional argument are a form of mothering and tolerance that can be and has been, exploited under most if not all religions – the assumption of the value of the preservation of attempts at reconciliation of differences.

    But, there is only value in seeking cooperation if and only if we are in fact seeking cooperation, and doing so truthfully. Because otherwise it is not an attempt at truth or trade but deception, boycott, or parasitism.

    I have, as did nietzsche, (and have the chinese thru different means) come to understand that this was a profound mistake. There is a limit to the extension of kinship love to non kin and that limit is determined by the willingness to speak truthfully regardless of the impact on the status (dominance/competence) hierarchy.

    And the end result of tolerance is dysgenic, and the benefits of civilization gradually lost. It is fairly common knowledge that the even given that islam was spread by the sword and destroyed the great knowlege producing civilizations, the rather rapid failure of islamic civilizaiton esp after 1200 was due to its underclass utility and its consequential stagnation by overemphasis on tolerance rather than encouraging, rewarding, competition, and the social reward of heroism. Combined with inbreeding, and inbreeding with slaves (which is about the inverse of american blacks and whites) this produced first predation, then peace, then stagnation. The only reason for the conquests was a vast number of excess males, just as we are seeing today. And that is the cause of all disorder: an excess of males with no sexual market value because the economy is too primitive to provide them with opportunity. The only result under that model is the STEM family (extended tribal family) wherein people of low productivity pool their resources. This causes inbreeding, and reinforces not only familialism, and tribalism, but the low trust endemic in the islamic world (which muslims are incognizant of).

    Families will evolve to be dysfunctional if we do not have the competition between mother’s foolish exhaustive tolerance, and father’s limits, brother’s competition and alliance and sister’s competition and satisfaction.

    This same principle applies to nations and civilizations, and those that took the maternal path (islam, africa) and those that took the paternal path (aryan and modern europe, east asia) progressed rapidly and everyone else DECLINED. The same thing that happened in Islam happened in west africa. From dominance to decline in fairly short order.

    So in argumentative technique, I have used for many years, and I am open about using, never letting the evil people have the last word, but (a) returning any ridiucule, ralllyin or shaming (b) restating the central argument (c) criticizing them for not making such an argument, and then (d) staying with it until they are exhausted. This is somewhat like putting a child in room and ignoring him, except we cannot put these particular chlidren in a room, or beat and slap those particular teens and adults. Instead, we merely exaust every opportunity that they have for gratification for their behavior.

    I had to learn that my people were wrong. Most of us have to. The reason being that most of us and most of our people, and nearly all of our ancestors have been wrong. Not only wrong, but in many cases destructive.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 08:44:00 UTC

  • Will The Meeting Between Putin And Trump Actually Accomplish Anything?

    (The correct answer for the many well intentioned f—-ls)

    Trump always and everywhere negotiates. Great negotiators are not afraid of opponents, they are thrilled by the competition. Trump is a ruthless negotiator who has made an industry out of baiting opponents, entrapping them, and then controlling them. He creates opportunity for greedy people to act greedy, traps them and the exploits them for their greediness. This is why the bankruptcies are merely a tactic he uses to entrap greedy people, and corrupt bureaucrats. Where the ignorant person sees failure, the sophisticated person sees strategy.

    Trump is a competitor in the Nietzschean mold. He sees a meeting with Putin as an opportunity to learn how to win just as he sees a meeting with Kim as an opportunity to learn how to win. The worst that happens is that nothing happens. The best that happens is that he finds (as did Regan) an opportunity. He does not care about ‘face’ or your approval. He only cares about opportunities to win.

    Putin is terribly rational and very simple: russians never want to repeat the 1990’s and they respect strength. He saved them from chaos and has given them self respect back. All his stunts that cause us to react are just image building. We are just a tool for him to show his people he is strong. Just as we are just a tool for Kim to demand cash when he is bankrupt. Putin is actually very weak because he is under the control of his dependence upon the export of petroleum. The difference is that Kim can starve his people and retain power, and Putin can’t. Stalin would have starved them. Putin isn’t that strong.

    Trump’s point of view, and it is not false, is that Americans are weak negotiators trying to win friends and make their jobs easy at the expense of the middle american work force. His opinion (and he’s right) is that china is rising to replace us by stealing our technology and undermining our markets. It does not take skill to negotiate an agreement that is favorable to your opponents.

    How do I know this. I do exactly the same thing. Why? Because Kings, Generals, and Entrepreneurs, unlike corporate heads, bureaucrats, and politicians have a constituency of one. Themselves. Some people go public to make a windfall. some of us stay private so that we remain our masters. Trump stays private to remain his own master. The only place a man can still be king is in commerce.

    Very few people in contemporary life actually participate in the market economy at personal financial risk. Kings, Generals, Investors, and Entrepreneurs of every scale, do it every day.

    Trump acts like a king, general, and entrepreneur because he has always been an entrepreneur, and he was trained in a military school.

    He’s not looking for your approval. He’s just always testing himself to see if he can out compete. Because that is the only test that the Nietzschean man cares about: the test of the markets.

    https://www.quora.com/Will-the-meeting-between-Putin-and-Trump-actually-accomplish-anything

  • Why Do You Think Genetically And Ethnically Speaking Egyptians (they Are Usually Grouped Separately) Are So Distinct And Separate From Berbers And Other Groups Surrounding Egypt?

    There are two major admixture events that affected north africa.

    1. In historical order, Egyptians consist of about 45% late east africans, 45% South caucasians, and 10% Phoenicians.
    2. The last major migration out of africa was about 25000 years ago. Africa is best thought of as three or four separate “continents” due to its size and geography. The mediterranean, the desert, the ‘green band’ from west africa to ethiopia/Yemen, the inhospitable south, and the south/southeast coast.
    3. The civilization that developed on the trade route between ethiopia and yemen gave birth to that major migration. That migration “E”, spread north and then west into north africa.
    4. There was an admixture event between west eurasians (Caucasians “J1″) and these peoples. Current admixture (E+J1) is about even between the two. (An interesting nit is that it’s possible north africans domesticated cattle separately. ) I am not sure of the admixture relationship between the Phoenicians and Berbers, although I am certain there are people in the world who know that. It’s not an area that I have studied. As I understand it the Phoenicians (east mediterraneans) contributed about ten percent to the current distribution. So between Red Sea origins, north African expansion, conquest by or integration with, south caucasians (people with black hair), and conquest by/integration with the Phoenicians (as well as some mixture because of the usual mediterranean trade), I think we understand most of the genetic history of North Africans.
    5. The Arab conquest of North Africa that destroyed North African, Egyptian, and Levantine civilizations left less genetic impression on these peoples than one would think.
    6. In my understanding, there has been negligible crossover between subsaharan africans and north africans because the desert and distance has been prohibitive.
    7. The Roman defeat of Carthage (west phoenicians) was a catastrophe for mankind just as the battle between Sparta and Athens, and between Germany(ie: sparta) and england(ie:athens) were catastrophes. We never seem to learn from history that the farmer-army and merchant-navy require each other to compete successfully
    8. The Arab conquest was far worse however (as it was everywhere in the world), because islam is the last civilization to adjust to the end of the Abrahamic Dark Age and the Restoration of Science (the enlightenment) and the most resistant to it – and even if we are lucky, it will take another one to two hundred years of progress to bring north africa out of its current condition.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-you-think-genetically-and-ethnically-speaking-Egyptians-They-are-usually-grouped-separately-are-so-distinct-and-separate-from-Berbers-and-other-groups-surrounding-Egypt

  • Do You Agree With The Assertion That Some Races Have Higher IQ Than Other Races Naturally?

    I want to add what I believe the science currently tells us about differences in group intelligence.

    1. Differences in demographic distribution. Rather than state that the races possess terribly meaningful differences, the data suggests pretty strongly that certain groups have expanded their middle and upper classes under agrarianism, and some have expanded their lower and subclasses under pastoralism.
    2. Success at Neoteny/Pedomorphism in other words, ‘self domestication’ of certain groups was more effective largely because of geography. This is why intensity and rate sexual development is the inverse of intelligence in all groups. And this is measurable by testosterone in each race and subrace. Africans a lot, steppe/desert people a bit less, caucasians quite a bit less, and east asians a lot less. Why? Early maturity is absolutely necessary in Africa if for no other reason than the disease gradient. Late maturity or reduced depth of maturity (see body odor differences between races and ages), is beneficial in the rigours of above 45th agrarianism, and the genetic underclass cannot survive the seasonal cycles.
    3. Balance of Dimorphism. Male and female brains differ in structure and chemistry. Verbal and spatial specializations (biases really) follow these differences. Some groups demonstrate both bias to the female reproductive strategy and verbal superiority, some balance, and some demonstrate the bias to male reproductive strategy and spatial superiority.

    As far as I know all substantive differences in Homo Sapiens Sapiens are explicable by minor variations in endocrine expression both in utero and in early development.

    And that our racial differences are largely due to (a) the generation we left africa or remained there, and (b) the degree of neoteny and balance we achieved during self-domestication, and (c) the number and diversity of competitors we faced in our geography.

    And so far the data agrees.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-assertion-that-some-races-have-higher-IQ-than-other-races-naturally