Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Should White People Pay Reparations For Their Collective, Colonial Pasts?

    UNPLEASANT TRUTHS IN A COMPLETE ANSWER
    I wonder, if white people ( Native Europeans) should collect taxes (Income) for their spread of Aristotelianism (Science), Natural Law under Reciprocity by Tort (Rule of Law), Accounting, Finance, Banking, Credit, and Interest, and The suppression of systemic corruption and in doing so dragging the whole of humanity kicking and screaming, in one revolt after another out of ignorance, superstition, hard physical labor, child labor, poverty, diseases, infanticide, and tyranny in less than 500 years. When beginning with the Abrahamic Dark Age (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the world had made little caloric progress for almost two thousand years.)

    As far as I know, the only mistake white people have made is entering into a civil war with cousins in Germany, that was initiated by communists, starting in Russia, and spreading like islam today (westward) to the point of internal exhaustion, and therefore leaving the colonial problem incomplete, and therefore leaving so much of the world to struggle through the long process of corruption-suppression, rule of law development, and middle class development, while the only western peoples left standing (Americans, Australians, and Canadians) were geographically isolated from the less developed peoples – all of whom still struggle with corruption, truthfulness, rule of law, moral commerce, and dysgenic reproduction rates.

    WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE THE GREEKS AND ROMANS?
    WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE NATIVE NORTHERN EUROPEANS (WHITES)?

    https://www.quora.com/Should-white-people-pay-reparations-for-their-collective-colonial-pasts

  • What Are Your Thoughts On Politics And Religion?

    THE COMPLETE ANSWER

    I have come to understand that the abrahamic religions are the cause of the dark age, the cause of more deaths than the plagues, and the continuing cause of human suffering, and the greatest threat to human transcendence (evolution).

    RELIGION AND MINDFULNESS

    We all require mindfulness outside of hunter gatherer lifestyles where we know our ‘place’ with everyone around us. We need Personal mindfulness. Interpersonal Mindfulness. And socio-political mindfulness. We evolved as pack animals. A strange mixture of chimp and wolf. We all long for the security of some aspect of the elation, power, comfort, and security of pack. Yet the more advanced our civilizations the more isolated we are as individuals. This was the problem religions solved, and religions solved them by evolving all at about the same time, in response to the needs of living in greater numbers with less certainty in our relations.

    We fail to grasp that religions are vast lies that provide mindfulness. We can achieve mindfulness through intentional discipline, a variety of rituals, participations in feasts, dances, parades, sports, celebrations, and especially in oration, ‘theater’, and Myth.

    But we can obtain that mindfulness by truthful, half truthful, or entirely untruthful means. And there are profound consequences for any people given the means of mindfulness they choose.

    GOVERNMENT AND COMMONS

    As far as I can tell, government is necessary for the production of increasingly complex commons. And mindfulness is necessary for cooperation in those increasingly complex commons.

    But that said, both politics under democracy and religion regardless of political structure are constituted of very little other than utter falsehoods, because both seek power over us and profits from us, by lying.

    If we lived under rule of natural (common) law (of tort), where we extended warraty of due diligence from goods, and services, to political speech, and houses of government were but a market for cooperation between the classes (as in the old english monarchic model) except that we used direct democracy or direct economic democracy, without representatives, and each voted on each issue individually, it is very hard to imagine we would have much use for politics.

    If we were all taught mindfulness like we are taught table manners, reading-writing, arithmetic – even if we had to teach it by half a dozen different means in order to satisfy the needs of peoples with different brain structures, then we would have little need for religion.

    The problem is…. we all love our little lies.

    And in my world, it is the lies that cause all the world’s problems, and justify all the world’s crimes, and encourage all the world’s evil.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-thoughts-on-politics-and-religion

  • Are Some Races More Kind, Gentle, Submissive, Beta, And Respectful Towards Their Elders Than Other Races?

    Well, yes, but it’s terribly impolitic to say so and terribly impolitic to ask. But, my job is answering the ‘impolitic and hard’ questions

    The correct question is, “Do some subraces tribes or clans demonstrate lower clannishness and higher extension of kingroup trust to non-kin?”

    1. The answer is yes. (See research on infants in cribs, and research on babies and very young on those they don’t know).
    2. The answer is yes and appears to be like most things, dependent upon ancestral environments. Homogeneity breeds tolerance and heterogeneity breeds clannishness. And we see this all over the world in every racial, subracial, tribal, clan, and class grouping.
    3. The answer is yes and it appears to be neoteny/pedomorphism, meaning the preservation of adolescent traits into adults.
    4. The answer is yes, and it appears that just like in other animals, the primary means of neoteny is reduction of the rate and depth of maturity.
    5. The answer is yes and it appears that the clannishness (Tolerance) of racial groups is measurable in the races by testosterone levels. (it also appears that most variation in homo-sapiens-sapiens is endocrine and therefore developmental. In this measurement east asians have the lowest testosterone, greatest neoteny, and as a consequence longest lives. Second to east asians are western europeans. Both of these groups could evolve without excessive competition from competing subracies and tribes. (Homogeneity is better in the long run in every sense.)
    6. Whites demonstrate the lowest clannishness (really). East asians and west asians (semites, and turkish) are the most clannish And everyone else is downhill from there. The difference is that east asians are not under threat from immigration and whites are.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-some-races-more-kind-gentle-submissive-beta-and-respectful-towards-their-elders-than-other-races

  • Do Governments Create Wealth And Jobs For Its Citizens?

    THE COMPLETE AND CORRECT ANSWER.

    —-”Do governments create wealth and jobs for citizens?”—-

    First, let’s understand some terms to make sure we know what we’re talking about.

    SERIES: Defense > Rule > Government > Bureaucracy (monopoly) > Institutions (anonymous cooperation at scale) > Markets (speculation, investment, production, distribution, trade) > Norms (friction reduction) > Truth Telling (friction reduction) > Trust (risk taking) > Economic Velocity > Social Order.

    DEFINITIONS:

    – Defense (producing a territorial monopoly on the organization of decidability over uses of assets (property)),
    – Rule (dispute resolution, or resolution of differences),
    – Government (the production and management of commons), and;
    – Bureaucracy (a monopoly that manages daily operations) are four different things.

    Defense secures territory from appropriation by other large organizations capable of physical appropriation. Defense produces possibility of choice of SOCIAL ORDER (portfolio of property, norms, traditions, laws, legislation, regulation, institutions)

    Rule resolves disputes between people given the property allocations (in china, none, in russia, some, in europe some more, in america most.) In most cases norms are produced by the consequences of rulings by kings, judges, priests, and ‘authorities’. This is why laws vary: they must reflect the needs of the current stage of development of the people in the polity. Adjudications of differences produce LAW.

    Government produces commons through charging and maximizing fees (taxes) of members, and directing those fees to the production of commons, that they assume will produce multipliers (greater returns than private sector will) for the simple reason that some commons are extremely expensive. Legislation(contract) or Command(Dictate) produces LAW SUBSTITUTES we call Law but are not. This ‘conflation’ is endemic in discourse.

    Bureaucracy does labor that a market cannot yet perform through competition. In theory, a bureaucracy functions as portfolio (financial) manager of a function that the market cannot yet produce, or produce in sufficient quantity, or produce at a sufficient price. But like all monopolies they pursue self interest and always become corrupt. In a perfect world, states would start multiple competing bureaucracies like startups, and the best one or two would survive.

    WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO

    Governments create the possibility to organize increasingly complex markets with increasingly complex divisions of labor, with increasingly complex concentrations of capital, with increasingly complex abilities to adapt to shifts, changes, and shocks.

    Governments do this by prohibiting rent seeking, corruption, parasitism, theft, murder at the local level, and capturing the gains as taxation, which they then use to pay for the production of commons, that in turn produce multipliers (returns), that in turn increase standards of living – or governments fail to do so, by not suppressing corruption and not producing commons, and not producing multipliers.

    So governments create the possibilty of increasingly productive and rewarding polities. But it is the entire network of people from the monarchy (Rulers) to the peasantry (laborers) that create jobs through constant increases in the velocity of prodcutiion.

    Why? Because our only wealth is time. We are not wealthier than cave men. We simply make everything cheaper by taking less time with more hands in greater coordination to produce everything we desire for less and less of our time.

    Rules make a game. Governments make rules so that we can play economic games – and moreover that we cannot play anti-economic gains.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Do-governments-create-wealth-and-jobs-for-its-citizens

  • Is Warren Buffett Considered Republican Or Democrat? Why?

    THE COMPLETE ANSWER

    From the period between the civil war and the 1970’s, the south held animosity toward the republican party over Lincoln’s civil war. This led to the Democratic and Republican parties having both conservative and classical liberal members.

    Beginning between 76 and 80 this began to change because the democratic party had been captured more aggressively by the radical left and the feminists. Plus the left had used immigration starting in 1964 as a means of achieving the socialist revolution (tearing down the american experiment) through demographic warfare where they had failed by propaganda and pseudoscience (marxism, boazianism, freudianism, cantorian mathematics, and keynesian post marxist economics.)

    By and large the democratic effort has been effective for large business and finance. So many large business owners that serve the unproductive, laboring, working, and lower middle classes (what he invests in), are better off with policy that increases consumption.

    Whereas the republican (Aristocratic) is far more concerned with accumulating capital in Human (eugenic), behavioral (normative), institutional (rule of law by tort reciprocity – not rule BY legislation), and territorial than current consumption which consumes human capital (dysgenic, dysnormative, discretionary rather than reciprocal.)

    So between his AGE, his REGION, and his INTERESTS he votes for conservative democratic policies.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Warren-Buffett-considered-republican-or-democrat-Why

  • Should White People Pay Reparations For Their Collective, Colonial Pasts?

    UNPLEASANT TRUTHS IN A COMPLETE ANSWER
    I wonder, if white people ( Native Europeans) should collect taxes (Income) for their spread of Aristotelianism (Science), Natural Law under Reciprocity by Tort (Rule of Law), Accounting, Finance, Banking, Credit, and Interest, and The suppression of systemic corruption and in doing so dragging the whole of humanity kicking and screaming, in one revolt after another out of ignorance, superstition, hard physical labor, child labor, poverty, diseases, infanticide, and tyranny in less than 500 years. When beginning with the Abrahamic Dark Age (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the world had made little caloric progress for almost two thousand years.)

    As far as I know, the only mistake white people have made is entering into a civil war with cousins in Germany, that was initiated by communists, starting in Russia, and spreading like islam today (westward) to the point of internal exhaustion, and therefore leaving the colonial problem incomplete, and therefore leaving so much of the world to struggle through the long process of corruption-suppression, rule of law development, and middle class development, while the only western peoples left standing (Americans, Australians, and Canadians) were geographically isolated from the less developed peoples – all of whom still struggle with corruption, truthfulness, rule of law, moral commerce, and dysgenic reproduction rates.

    WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE THE GREEKS AND ROMANS?
    WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE NATIVE NORTHERN EUROPEANS (WHITES)?

    https://www.quora.com/Should-white-people-pay-reparations-for-their-collective-colonial-pasts

  • THE ONLY HILL FOR ARISTOCRACY TO STAND UPON. The only hill to stand upon is whet

    THE ONLY HILL FOR ARISTOCRACY TO STAND UPON.

    The only hill to stand upon is whether we receive in reciprocity the same right to self determination that others demand of us. Either we have the same right to self determination or we are conquered, and the victims of genocide. So, if we are not to receive the same reciprocity – we must separate. To separate we must revolt. To revolt to use war. To use war in the current era does not require we use it against people, but against infrastructure. 3 minutes of air, 3 days of water, 3 hours of power 3 weeks of food, 3 months of stress. It takes 90 days to act. The problem is a leadership that will act to cause a revolution, and a sufficient number of men who will act independently rather than rally (like schoolgirls) to war against infrastructure that makes the pretense of power visible.

    There is only one choice: the entire territory, or some part of it. IMO some part of it is preferable. And a part of it with ports, it’s own electrical grid, and a low cost of defense is the best place to start (texas).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-27 10:59:00 UTC

  • The Only Hill For Aristocracy To Stand Upon.

    The only hill to stand upon is whether we receive in reciprocity the same right to self determination that others demand of us. Either we have the same right to self determination or we are conquered, and the victims of genocide. So, if we are not to receive the same reciprocity – we must separate. To separate we must revolt. To revolt to use war. To use war in the current era does not require we use it against people, but against infrastructure. 3 minutes of air, 3 days of water, 3 hours of power 3 weeks of food, 3 months of stress. It takes 90 days to act. The problem is a leadership that will act to cause a revolution, and a sufficient number of men who will act independently rather than rally (like schoolgirls) to war against infrastructure that makes the pretense of power visible. There is only one choice: the entire territory, or some part of it. IMO some part of it is preferable. And a part of it with ports, it’s own electrical grid, and a low cost of defense is the best place to start (texas).

  • THE ETIQUETTE OF SINGING I have a “singy” family. I’m a “singy” person. No showe

    THE ETIQUETTE OF SINGING

    I have a “singy” family. I’m a “singy” person. No shower is safe. No empty house or apartment. No vacant sidewalk, or hiking trail. Bluesy rock preferably. The more complicated the better.

    Singing more than a few notes to remind others of a theme, violates etiquette during conversation, whether at the table or in the round. (You can look it up.) The reason being, that with a captive audience, one forces attention upon one’s self and interrupts conversation amongst others. It’s a dominance expression. It’s a form of aggression. Because singing is a form of soliloquy – internal voice – that is fine alone, or when it won’t interrupt anyone’s thoughts or speech, or while working together, or at invitation, or when organized by a group, or when that is the purpose of the forum. In other words, when it is not a dominance expression.

    Most of us would like to share our emotions by sharing the songs that remind us of evoking them – except that few if any of us share those emotions via the same melody. And among musicians it’s not uncommon to hum or sing a few notes as a part of a conversation. But there is a difference between sharing our emotions and imposing them. Music is precognitive.

    Myself, I am extremely intolerant of dominance expressions and I have an OCD problem in that I can only tolerate so much ‘stupid’ or ‘mundane’ speech, or ‘pretentious sentimentality’ before I subconsciously dominate conversations as a self defense measure – especially if I cannot use comedy to interrupt them. I know this. I struggle to control it. I control it when I can by leaving the room, if not the venue. As an autist it is a constant struggle against a profoundly intense impulse.

    I usually ask people “Am I talking too much?”, or say “It’s ok to tell me to stop talking.” There is absolutely no way I will be aware of disinterest or incomprehension, and highly unlikely aware of offense. It’s an autist thing. We just have no idea unless that is all we are looking for.

    We all have impulses in conversation that we must suppress. We all succeed or fail to varying degrees. It’s all very human. So all of us struggle to maneuver the flow of conversation into safe, familiar, or at least interesting content. And away from unsafe, unfamiliar, frustrating, conflict-creating or offensive content.

    We all seek to impose order on a kaleidic universe such that we can find a satisfactory way through our lives.

    So this bit of etiquette is another example of why we spend too much time with televisions and not enough time socializing – and then we wonder why the internal voice we share with close family, the television, and the walls is unwelcome in broader group context: we live lifestyles that gives us freedom to be anti-social in many subtle ways, then wondering why we don’t fit in to social situations, and end up lonely. Ergo, norms protect us from this. And we have no norms….

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-27 09:23:00 UTC

  • The Etiquette Of Singing

    I have a “singy” family. I’m a “singy” person. No shower is safe. No empty house or apartment. No vacant sidewalk, or hiking trail. Bluesy rock preferably. The more complicated the better. Singing more than a few notes to remind others of a theme, violates etiquette during conversation, whether at the table or in the round. (You can look it up.) The reason being, that with a captive audience, one forces attention upon one’s self and interrupts conversation amongst others. It’s a dominance expression. It’s a form of aggression. Because singing is a form of soliloquy – internal voice – that is fine alone, or when it won’t interrupt anyone’s thoughts or speech, or while working together, or at invitation, or when organized by a group, or when that is the purpose of the forum. In other words, when it is not a dominance expression. Most of us would like to share our emotions by sharing the songs that remind us of evoking them – except that few if any of us share those emotions via the same melody. And among musicians it’s not uncommon to hum or sing a few notes as a part of a conversation. But there is a difference between sharing our emotions and imposing them. Music is precognitive. Myself, I am extremely intolerant of dominance expressions and I have an OCD problem in that I can only tolerate so much ‘stupid’ or ‘mundane’ speech, or ‘pretentious sentimentality’ before I subconsciously dominate conversations as a self defense measure – especially if I cannot use comedy to interrupt them. I know this. I struggle to control it. I control it when I can by leaving the room, if not the venue. As an autist it is a constant struggle against a profoundly intense impulse. I usually ask people “Am I talking too much?”, or say “It’s ok to tell me to stop talking.” There is absolutely no way I will be aware of disinterest or incomprehension, and highly unlikely aware of offense. It’s an autist thing. We just have no idea unless that is all we are looking for. We all have impulses in conversation that we must suppress. We all succeed or fail to varying degrees. It’s all very human. So all of us struggle to maneuver the flow of conversation into safe, familiar, or at least interesting content. And away from unsafe, unfamiliar, frustrating, conflict-creating or offensive content. We all seek to impose order on a kaleidic universe such that we can find a satisfactory way through our lives. So this bit of etiquette is another example of why we spend too much time with televisions and not enough time socializing – and then we wonder why the internal voice we share with close family, the television, and the walls is unwelcome in broader group context: we live lifestyles that gives us freedom to be anti-social in many subtle ways, then wondering why we don’t fit in to social situations, and end up lonely. Ergo, norms protect us from this. And we have no norms….