EXPLAINING AMERICAN CIV – AND A CAUTION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipWIyujpgKM
Wow. Every single note. Flawless.
The usual perfection by @whatifalthist.
(My notes:)
1) Only one property is missing. That is, the diversity of american elites puts pressure on retaining the common natural…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-01 01:06:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641970252484419586
EXPLAINING AMERICAN CIV – AND A CAUTION
https://t.co/7Whhhi8lzn
Wow. Every single note. Flawless.
The usual perfection by @whatifalthist.
(My notes:)
1) Only one property is missing. That is, the diversity of american elites puts pressure on retaining the common natural concurrent law as the only means of reconciliation of differences. Whereas Europe has been more vulnerable because it DOESN”T have rule of law, it has rule of parliament. This is why early Europeans, the Greeks, Romans, Germans, English, and Americans all evolved the law: because it’s the only means of resolving conflict and providing ‘markets’ for elites. And science is an extension of the law to matters outside of the law: it’s the system of weights and measures in the absence of authority.
2) The frontier? Yes. But that’s not meaningful. The seas? The European continent? The desire to cross the Bosphorus? But I’d argue that just ‘Aryanism’ (indo european: heroic, militaristic, technological, sky worshipping, expansionist, where man is destined to walk among the gods). And Aryanism (an alliance of warrior families requires sovereignty and law) requires law in the absence of authority.
This is why I emphasize the law of the governing and the vs religion of the clerisy and peasantry, and ‘respect’ between them. That led to America’s near-equal treatment of the constitution and religion as sacred.
IMO we have over-emphasized the populism of the church vs the elitism of the aristocracy and the law as the means of decision-making in the absence of authority. Western law is law as laws of nature are law. The rest of the world does NOT practice law. We just call it that because it forms the same function: rules and commands.
And the similarity between Europeans and Jews and the outsized theoretical contribution of both, is that these are both law-based societies.
Small things in large numbers over long periods have vast consequences. And those consequences share a common ancestry, a common cause, and that cause is simple, and profound.
Why?
The inability to impose authority generates the necessity of law, reason to explain and justify it, and norms and traditions that evolve from it. In the case of Judaism, it was a separatist, feminine, and social worldview. In the west, it was an aristocratic, masculine, and military-economic worldview.
The world of human behavior requires only a handful of rules to explain. This means that societies only have to make a small number of strategic decisions during their evolution.
But it’s an Anna Karenina dilemma. Many things must go right for this rational scientific market system to evolve and survive. But most civilizations failed the AK dilemma.
So is the west better or just the least wrong of the civilizations?
One thing is for sure, the overwhelming demand for individual responsibility in this western and particularly american civilization is the most costly, and emotionally and psychologically burdensome.
We should not expect that everyone is both willing and able to pay that cost. And we cannot have a society with many people unwilling to do so. And the Marxist-to-feminist-to-woke sequence is just that: the search for evasion of individual responsibility necessary for the preservation of sovereignty.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-01 01:06:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641970252199108608
(continued…)
HEDGING A BIT
But let me qualify it a bit and say that while the theory of multiple intelligences is nonsense, intelligence is just one property of personality that affects demonstrated behavior.
The combinations of low impulsivity, high conscientiousness, and high intelligence need to go together. One can be less intelligent, but highly disciplined, conscientious, and work very hard, and someone can be highly intelligent, impulsive, and devoid of conscientiousness.
A lot of things must ‘go right’ for high intelligence to produce positive outcomes in life. (the good stuff kicks in at 115 and above). A lot of things can ‘go wrong’ and we end up with dim(90’s), dangerous (80’s), and untrainable (70’s and below).
For example, I read Neal Ferguson and I realize he has a better memory than I do and is more organized. I read Hayek and identify myself almost perfectly in every way – even speech pattern. I read Chomsky and it’s obvious he’s more intelligent than I am. But of those people the most ‘whole’ or ‘balanced’ person is definitely Ferguson.
There are people I can tell are quite a bit faster than I am especially at mathematical operations, or maintaining sets of states in short term memory. And others who have higher reading comprehension than I do – and greater patience with it. But what I see most often is that people with increasingly high ‘scores’ tend to possess side effects. Not all of them (Norman Schwartzkopf).
So this is why being smart isn’t enough. And this is why the ‘great families’ control reproduction and marriage so carefully, and only hand down assets to those that demonstrate performance. It’s hard work to make things ‘go right’ for generations.
Thankfully we tend to marry and reproduce within genetic classes if not within social and economic classes, and this tends to limit the damage done by the lower classes to the gene pool. That was until redistribution which took rates of reproduction from the working, middle, and upper classes and replaced it with reproduction and immigration from the lower classes.
It matters more for a society to have the smallest possible number of people at the bottom than it does to increase the number of people at the top. Context in everything affects everything else.
And in real life, it matters more that you have few “bads”, than that you have tremendously outlying “goods”.
FWIW: the evidence is clear that average people are almost always far happier than smart people. Mostly, we’re frustrated. The world doesn’t exist for us. We’re tools for the majority. And the world exists for them.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-31 16:50:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641845529934954518
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641845326020476933
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
–“Q: Has anyone described a simple IQ capability table?”–
Plenty of people have. This one is readable:
I.Q. ranges and real-life functioning.
As a general rule, IQ affects rate and therefore cost of learning, but also affects everything else like longevity, health, accidents, and income.
And I find it most helpful to speak in those terms. For about every ten points in IQ we dramatically change the ability of people to learn.
BELOW AVERAGE
60’s are mildly retarded. May still function with supervision. usually socially inept
70’s are borderline retarded. They have problems with basic literacy and instructions, and require supervision.
80’s are problematic. Because the ‘evil 80s’ are where most violence comes from, and the average intelligence of most backward communities is in the 80’s. This is because people in this range are unable to compete but still able to plot and execute simple crimes.
AVERAGE
90 is the minimum for following written instructions, and operating machines. This is the minimum employability for routine work.
100 to learn from written materials and 105 capable of repairing machines. (Arguably 106 to articulate your own ideas). 106 appears to be the minimum median IQ for the formation of a high trust polity.
ABOVE AVERAGE
110 to manage one’s learning from instructors (college format). The closer we get in median IQ to 110 the more likely we are to have a golden age.
120 to investigate and learn on one’s own (graduate format) and 125 capable of designing machines. It is probably impossible to achieve a median IQ in this range.
130 capable of synthesizing ideas and communicating them (low level phd in soft subjects). The good to great authors are in this range.
INTELLIGENT
140+ capable of discovering and inventing new ideas using highly structured reasoning. (PhD in hard subjects)
RULES OF THUMB
One standard deviation is 15 points. We can usually communicate within one standard deviation of one another. By two standard deviations we cannot generally communicate successfully.
If we look at loose averages, our social and economic classes roughly reflect this distribution.
In my experience, and according to most professionals, 140 is the limit of IQ tests, and over that we must test specific abilities. Some would say that 130 is the limit of meaningful testing. Above those levels we start to see dispersion of traits so that while we might demonstrate exceptional ability in some area or other, we tend not to possess the full suite of abilities in balanced form.
(more in followup tweet)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1641845326020476933
(continued…)
HEDGING A BIT
But let me qualify it a bit and say that while the theory of multiple intelligences is nonsense, intelligence is just one property of personality that affects demonstrated behavior.
The combinations of low impulsivity, high conscientiousness, and high intelligence need to go together. One can be less intelligent, but highly disciplined, conscientious, and work very hard, and someone can be highly intelligent, impulsive, and devoid of conscientiousness.
A lot of things must ‘go right’ for high intelligence to produce positive outcomes in life. (the good stuff kicks in at 115 and above). A lot of things can ‘go wrong’ and we end up with dim(90’s), dangerous (80’s), and untrainable (70’s and below).
For example, I read Neal Ferguson and I realize he has a better memory than I do and is more organized. I read Hayek and identify myself almost perfectly in every way – even speech pattern. I read Chomsky and it’s obvious he’s more intelligent than I am. But of those people the most ‘whole’ or ‘balanced’ person is definitely Ferguson.
There are people I can tell are quite a bit faster than I am especially at mathematical operations, or maintaining sets of states in short term memory. And others who have higher reading comprehension than I do – and greater patience with it. But what I see most often is that people with increasingly high ‘scores’ tend to possess side effects. Not all of them (Norman Schwartzkopf).
So this is why being smart isn’t enough. And this is why the ‘great families’ control reproduction and marriage so carefully, and only hand down assets to those that demonstrate performance. It’s hard work to make things ‘go right’ for generations.
Thankfully we tend to marry and reproduce within genetic classes if not within social and economic classes, and this tends to limit the damage done by the lower classes to the gene pool. That was until redistribution which took rates of reproduction from the working, middle, and upper classes and replaced it with reproduction and immigration from the lower classes.
It matters more for a society to have the smallest possible number of people at the bottom than it does to increase the number of people at the top. Context in everything affects everything else.
And in real life, it matters more that you have few “bads”, than that you have tremendously outlying “goods”.
FWIW: the evidence is clear that average people are almost always far happier than smart people. Mostly, we’re frustrated. The world doesn’t exist for us. We’re tools for the majority. And the world exists for them.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-31 16:50:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641845530148864016
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641845326020476933
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
–“Q: Has anyone described a simple IQ capability table?”–
Plenty of people have. This one is readable:
I.Q. ranges and real-life functioning.
As a general rule, IQ affects rate and therefore cost of learning, but also affects everything else like longevity, health, accidents, and income.
And I find it most helpful to speak in those terms. For about every ten points in IQ we dramatically change the ability of people to learn.
BELOW AVERAGE
60’s are mildly retarded. May still function with supervision. usually socially inept
70’s are borderline retarded. They have problems with basic literacy and instructions, and require supervision.
80’s are problematic. Because the ‘evil 80s’ are where most violence comes from, and the average intelligence of most backward communities is in the 80’s. This is because people in this range are unable to compete but still able to plot and execute simple crimes.
AVERAGE
90 is the minimum for following written instructions, and operating machines. This is the minimum employability for routine work.
100 to learn from written materials and 105 capable of repairing machines. (Arguably 106 to articulate your own ideas). 106 appears to be the minimum median IQ for the formation of a high trust polity.
ABOVE AVERAGE
110 to manage one’s learning from instructors (college format). The closer we get in median IQ to 110 the more likely we are to have a golden age.
120 to investigate and learn on one’s own (graduate format) and 125 capable of designing machines. It is probably impossible to achieve a median IQ in this range.
130 capable of synthesizing ideas and communicating them (low level phd in soft subjects). The good to great authors are in this range.
INTELLIGENT
140+ capable of discovering and inventing new ideas using highly structured reasoning. (PhD in hard subjects)
RULES OF THUMB
One standard deviation is 15 points. We can usually communicate within one standard deviation of one another. By two standard deviations we cannot generally communicate successfully.
If we look at loose averages, our social and economic classes roughly reflect this distribution.
In my experience, and according to most professionals, 140 is the limit of IQ tests, and over that we must test specific abilities. Some would say that 130 is the limit of meaningful testing. Above those levels we start to see dispersion of traits so that while we might demonstrate exceptional ability in some area or other, we tend not to possess the full suite of abilities in balanced form.
(more in followup tweet)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1641845326020476933
WHAT’S UP WITH SCANDINAVIA AND THE BRITISH ISLES
GENETICS
First, the people with the most remaining Stepp Herder genes are ‘up there’. And while we don’t think of the UK as Scandinavian, that’s a modern conception.
There was a rotation of ‘vikings’ into Scotland and Ireland, and then out of Ireland and into Scotland, and then out of england into north Ireland. 😉
So to some degree the anglo saxons spread across into england, but the cornish, welsh, vs the irish and the scots were all affected differently.
WATER VS LAND
We tend to think in terms of land, but land is hard to cross, especially with market goods, and seas are a highway, especially for trade. So, it’s better to look at the north sea, and within 200 miles of the coastlines as the territory instead of the land itself. In that sense just as the Greeks, Adriatic, and Peleponese, vs the North Sea and the northern Europeans.
TRADE ROUTES
Combine that with the Lotharingian trade route from Italy (Venice, Florence) to the Netherlands, to London, and you have the two main trade routes of Europe from 500 to 1500ad. Then we shift the same order to the Atlantic by the same people.
NAVIES
And in the choice between armies that are slow, a sunk cost, and foster corruption, versus navies that can be used for trade and cause constant technological development instead, you start to see why the west outpaced the rest, and so did the Phoenicians.
Reply addressees: @pseudnonymus
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-30 01:44:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641255111816015872
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641249503171715074
WHAT’S UP WITH SCANDINAVIA AND THE BRITISH ISLES
GENETICS
First, the people with the most remaining Stepp Herder genes are ‘up there’. And while we don’t think of the UK as Scandinavian, that’s a modern conception.
There was a rotation of ‘vikings’ into Scotland and Ireland, and then out of Ireland and into Scotland, and then out of england into north Ireland. 😉
So to some degree the anglo saxons spread across into england, but the cornish, welsh, vs the irish and the scots were all affected differently.
WATER VS LAND
We tend to think in terms of land, but land is hard to cross, especially with market goods, and seas are a highway, especially for trade. So, it’s better to look at the north sea, and within 200 miles of the coastlines as the territory instead of the land itself. In that sense just as the Greeks, Adriatic, and Peleponese, vs the North Sea and the northern Europeans.
TRADE ROUTES
Combine that with the Lotharingian trade route from Italy (Venice, Florence) to the Netherlands, to London, and you have the two main trade routes of Europe from 500 to 1500ad. Then we shift the same order to the Atlantic by the same people.
NAVIES
And in the choice between armies that are slow, a sunk cost, and foster corruption, versus navies that can be used for trade and cause constant technological development instead, you start to see why the west outpaced the rest, and so did the Phoenicians.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-30 01:44:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641255111946010626
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641249503171715074
MORE ON SEX DIFFERENCES AND SOLVING OUR CRISIS
I think this post is easily misinterpreted without the context of sex differences originating in variations in a) acquisition(consumption), b) fear c) responsibility, and d) status, and e) predicting emotions(empathizing, tails) vs… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1640371752113958912
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-28 12:29:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640692632782266371
RESTORING CIV.
(life lessons) (learning from luke weinhagen)
Working with Luke Weinhagen yesterday during an interview on the eighth chapter of his book “primal primer” and having a moment of insight that is an example of the value of his work.
1) I’m hyper gregarious, but I…
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-28 12:13:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640688443150815235
Q:”CURT: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE FEMALE MIND?”
(in a word: ‘prey’. (fear))
1) OPPORTUNITY: Identification of novelties is easier (requires less skill) for the brain than excellences (requires more skill) -ie: children’s tastes vs adult tastes. (ie: shopping)
2) CONSUMPTION: The brain identifies novelties that are possible resources for consumption – as such drives our attention to novelties.
3) HYPERCONSUMPTION: The female brain seeks hyper-consumption for status just as the male seeks hyper-capitalization for status. Acquisition(material loss aversion) and Status(opportunity loss aversion) drive all human priorities.
4) ATTENTION: The female brain seeks attention because the female brain seeks successful manipulation by the capture of attention, using seduction (from subtle approval to sexual), to acquire hyper-consumption and status.
5) RESPONSIBILITY EVASION: The female brain fears being wrong, rarely if ever admits error, casts itself as a victim, and avoids responsibility for its instincts, intuitions, and choices at all times. (neurosis)
6) MAXIMUM UTILITY IN HYPERCONSUMPTION: Novelties, that do not require skill but just basal instincts, offer opportunities for consumption, for hyperconsumption, for status, for attention, for manipulation by seduction, where the female can’t be wrong, produce the greatest incentive available to women (other than defense of her young).
7) SAFETY: Most women seek safety by maximizing hyperconsumption, hypergamy, social relations, and minimum responsibility, as such they can ‘feel, love, care’ without risk. Why? These traits minimize the risk to her and her offspring. However, in the absence of offspring this becomes what we see as female selfishness and anti-sociality, and in numbers, anti-civilizational warfare (feminism-woke).
8) NEGATIVE SELECTION: (this might hurt): Men select women by neoteny (fertility, youth, symmetry, gracility, femininity), where women select AGAINST neoteny. In other words, men drive evolution toward human domestication, and women drive evolution toward human primitivization. This is why it’s important to teach women what a ‘good man’ is because otherwise they will ‘race to the bottom’ – at least the vast majority will do so. So again, men created civilization and partly by domesticating women as much as one another.
That’s about the most accurate description of female behavior you will ever need to understand all female behavior regardless of context.
Seriously.
Women are really that simple.
And yes, men are really wallet objects, and women are really sex objects, and it turns out evolution did that out of necessity. So we develop rituals and myths to romanticize and socialize and institutionalize what is otherwise just physics at work.
But nature has an inescapable law: “We are not equal and He Who Breeds Wins.”
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 15:14:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640371751761715203
Q:”CURT: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE FEMALE MIND?”
(in a word: ‘prey’. (fear))
1) OPPORTUNITY: Identification of novelties is easier (requires less skill) for the brain than excellences (requires more skill) -ie: children’s tastes vs adult tastes. (ie: shopping)
2) CONSUMPTION: The brain identifies novelties that are possible resources for consumption – as such drives our attention to novelties.
3) HYPERCONSUMPTION: The female brain seeks hyper-consumption for status just as the male seeks hyper-capitalization for status. Acquisition(material loss aversion) and Status(opportunity loss aversion) drive all human priorities.
4) ATTENTION: The female brain seeks attention because the female brain seeks successful manipulation by the capture of attention, using seduction (from subtle approval to sexual), to acquire hyper-consumption and status.
5) RESPONSIBILITY EVASION: The female brain fears being wrong, rarely if ever admits error, casts itself as a victim, and avoids responsibility for its instincts, intuitions, and choices at all times. (neurosis)
6) MAXIMUM UTILITY IN HYPERCONSUMPTION: Novelties, that do not require skill but just basal instincts, offer opportunities for consumption, for hyperconsumption, for status, for attention, for manipulation by seduction, where the female can’t be wrong, produce the greatest incentive available to women (other than defense of her young).
7) SAFETY: Most women seek safety by maximizing hyperconsumption, hypergamy, social relations, and minimum responsibility, as such they can ‘feel, love, care’ without risk. Why? These traits minimize the risk to her and her offspring. However, in the absence of offspring this becomes what we see as female selfishness and anti-sociality, and in numbers, anti-civilizational warfare (feminism-woke).
8) NEGATIVE SELECTION: (this might hurt): Men select women by neoteny (fertility, youth, symmetry, gracility, femininity), where women select AGAINST neoteny. In other words, men drive evolution toward human domestication, and women drive evolution toward human primitivization. This is why it’s important to teach women what a ‘good man’ is because otherwise they will ‘race to the bottom’ – at least the vast majority will do so. So again, men created civilization and partly by domesticating women as much as one another.
That’s about the most accurate description of female behavior you will ever need to understand all female behavior regardless of context.
Seriously.
Women are really that simple.
And yes, men are really wallet objects, and women are really sex objects, and it turns out evolution did that out of necessity. So we develop rituals and myths to romanticize and socialize and institutionalize what is otherwise just physics at work.
But nature has an inescapable law: “We are not equal and He Who Breeds Wins.”
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 15:14:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640371752113958912