Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “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

  • do we fight racism?”—- You can’t. You can simply avoid the problem. All that hap

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-fight-racism—-”How do we fight racism?”—-

    You can’t. You can simply avoid the problem. All that happens in mixed race cultures, is that castes replace races. I can’t find anywhere any attempt has worked and hasn’t resulted in the total collapse of the civilization. When you increase the size of the polity you get classes.

    Sorry.

    That’s how it is for the simple reason that some people are more genetically desirable in every way than other peoples, and that’s what social class means: reproductive, associative, cooperative, economically cooperative, politically cooperative, militarily cooperative desirability. Each of us has a social market value and that social market value is what we call our class. We have higher sexual and social market value within group than across group except at the extremes. The desirability of different subraces is well documented, and is determined by ratio-proportionality and degree of neoteny.

    The only way to avoid the problem is to** segregate within states, or separate into separate states.**

    The science behind this reality is quite simple:

    1 – Races and Subraces have different sized underclasses and **different distributions** around the mean in the personality traits that are genetically determined and largely immutable: a) intelligence, b) industriousness, and in rates of sexual development and depths of sexual development, and the retention of those features that illustrate retention of childhood features. (we have been domesticated just like other animals. We are no different. Some groups are more domesticated (lower testosterone, lower impulsivity, lower and slower sexual development, and therefore greater agency (self discipline of our emotions and impulses).

    2 – Because of these differences **we need to produce VERY different commons** (manners, ethics, morals, norms, traditions, laws, institutions, education and training in the intuitionistic [what we call religion], in physical training, and in skills training, and in occupational training.) The median (average) (66% majority) determines the demand for formal and informal institutions (listed below).

    3 – **Proximity Creates Animosity **because of the different status signals in and across groups, and the different rates of development both genetically, informatively, and culturally. Groups that are happy with their condition separately become hostile in proximity, and more hostile in cohabitation, and more hostile in political competition. This is true everywhere on earth.

    4 – Because of these differences we need **very different political orders** – from the very liberal northern European high trust, to the very disciplined as we see in religious regions, to the nearly military needed in others.

    I could go on but the end is the end: Trying to eliminate races always and everywhere produces a **race to the bottom**. Creating many small nation states that are little more than corporations that serve the needs of their kin group and that kin group’s distribution will produce a** race to the top**.

    There is a very good reason why Europe evolved faster than the rest of the world combined in both the ancient and modern worlds: small homogeneous states. **Monopolies are always bad**. They are even worse in federations and empires.

    China is the interesting exception since the Han slowly conquer and integrate near neighbors, and are currently in the process of doing so to the remaining border nations. The Han are the largest ethnic group in the world. And they conquer and ‘make disappear’ every group possible. The Indians, who were (at least in what is today’s Pakistan) one of the oldest civilizations, were not able to progress – we don’t understand why yet but probably demographics. The Chinese stagnated despite good demographics. The Arabs destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world (North African, Egyptian, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Persian, Byzantine, (and as a consequence Roman by raids and slave taking) and ended by 1200, with the remains of their empire was only preserved by the new population of Turks who were forced out of china’s territories – but even the Turks declined rather quickly, and the middle east is still in the 7th century in most ways. South Americans are falling behind again. East Africa was on the cusp of development when the Europeans arrived and pitted the emerging civilizations against each other.

    **Races** are a good thing. **Subraces** are a good thing. **Tribes** are a good thing. **Clans** are a good thing. **Families** are a good thing. You can choose between kingroup-states, or Corporate States. You can choose between small very different states, or large homogeneous states. You can choose between collapse under political monopoly, or rapid progress under political diversity. Because in the spectrum from dictatorship to anglo rule of law you must possess an increasingly optimum demographic as you move from dictatorship to liberty.

    **The only value of scale is military conquest**.

    The value of homogeneity is psychological, not real.

    The effect of diversity in a polity that has access to political power is always the same: collapse.

    The best countries to live in have **small homogeneous populations** with very **small underclasses**, high median **intelligence**, and well developed **neoteny**, without hostile **competitors** on their borders.Updated Aug 29, 2018, 11:11 AM

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

  • JEWISH (FEMALE) COERCION VS EUROPEAN (MALE) COERCION – COMPLETING THE METHOD by

    JEWISH (FEMALE) COERCION VS EUROPEAN (MALE) COERCION – COMPLETING THE METHOD by James Santagata

    While we are talking about:

    FEMININE) – Abrahamic (Jewish > Abrahamic > Semitic) Critique (reputation destruction), Pilpul (Excuse making), and Bilbul (retreat to confusion) argument under threat of ostracization which constitute the feminine method of coercion;

    – as a counter to –

    MASCULINE) – European Logic, Science, History, and Reciprocity(law) under threat of violence, which constitute the male method of coercion;

    We must recognize that we have OUR OWN TRAITORS against reciprocity as well:

    DEFECTORS) – Abrahamic theology > Socratic Criticism (Critique) > Platonic Justification (Pilpul) > German continental philosophy et al > French enlightenment Philosophy > French Postmodern Philosophy > Anglo female Defectors.

    So while we have Feminine antagonists, we also have our own beta-defector/traitors, as competing with our Masculine practitioners of truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets (meritocracy).

    This means that we are outnumbered, and that to preserve western excellence and our own genes we must rule out of self defense, if not out of profitable offense.

    SANTAGATA’S COMPLETION OF THE JEWISH METHOD

    By James Santagata

    —“3 Phases Attack / Debate Strategy by Jewish Left*

    (You’ll notice Jewish right engages using fact, logic, etc. as a default, the left not)

    Phase 1: Pilpul – (Hebrew for pepper) tiring contortions to exhaust opponent while trying to mock and create the illusion of superior intellect (and morals).

    Phase 2: Bilbul – (Hebrew for confusion). If the opponent calls out and crushes the Pilpul, it moves to Bilbul which is to confuse and create habit.

    Phase 3 – Bulbul – (Hebrew for “penis” or “dick”, child taunt / usage among Israelis), if one makes it past Pilpul and Bilbul the phase moves to Bulbul, name calling and pure ad hominems.

    Phase 1-3 are predictive and simple patterns and techniques to quickly deflect, side step or crush Pilpul, Bilbul and finally Bulbul.

    There is a fourth phase but I am still searching for Hebrew or even Yiddish word that would convey that while satisfying the rhyming / semi-alliterative pattern of Pilpul, Bilbul & Bulbul.”—

    I’ll correct (or extend) james’ rather brilliant insight here by saying that the jewish RIGHT does not abandon appeal to reasonableness and complete the adoption of western reciprocity of costs as decidability.

    James’ other insight is that the Jews are also pursuing the feminine strategy of sh-t testing. In other words, they are creating demand for dominance and we are failing both them and our women.

    This last insight of James’, I think, completes the description of jewish behavior as cognitively feminine. It also completes the analysis that they are engaged in conspiracy rather than simply demonstrating the female reproductive instinct that is the product of female evolutionary cognitive bias. It also explains why jews maintained maternal households, and only adopted monogamy in the late middle ages, prior to practicing polygenic reproduction.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 10:07:00 UTC

  • IMO: Programming will help you think linguistically better than all other forms

    IMO: Programming will help you think linguistically better than all other forms of reasoning combined, other than physics. Once you have physics and programming you have a formal logic of thinking about the real world and the verbal world. Once you have a BASIC understanding of economics as just ‘delayed’ physics (equilibrium), then you have the world at your feet.

    Programming, as Minsky said, was A NEW WAY OF THINKING for mankind. It is not mathematical thinking or language thinking as much as scientific thinking.

    1 – Reasoning (unconstrained) -Associations

    2 – Logical Thinking (constrained, non operationally constrained) – Sets – Consistency, Non Contradiction

    3 – Operational Thinking (constrained, operationally constrained) – Operations – Operational Possibility.

    Operationalism: The absence of inference, and all the negative consequences of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 09:43:00 UTC

  • “Q: WHAT DO YOU DEFINE AS COMMONS?”— —“@curtdoolittle Sir, do you have a res

    —“Q: WHAT DO YOU DEFINE AS COMMONS?”—

    —“@curtdoolittle Sir, do you have a resource that you could direct me towards in which you describe your understanding of the commons? Thank you in advance.”—Prussian Blue Persuasion

    Every single thing you pay for by either action, inaction,or forgone opportunity for discount or gain: obeying manners, ethics, morals, laws, norms, traditions, paying taxes, common property in all its forms (territory, resources, infrastructure, buildings, monuments), maintaining your, your neighbor’s, and local and national common property in all its forms, acts of charity (by your own hand and own money), acts of voluntary and military service.

    Anything that isn’t privately owned, by individual partnership, or corporation, but creates an asset for the members of the polity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 08:57:00 UTC

  • FROM FICTION WRITER’S Q&A —“What does your main character carry on their perso

    FROM FICTION WRITER’S Q&A

    —“What does your main character carry on their person?”—

    —“keys to low end porsche. iphone 5 because it’s small. lots of cash: around 10k. credit cards. simm cards for each of the brics, turkey, dubai, usa, europe, eastern europe, and canada, a walther .380. three passports. And in the trunk, a run-bag, a mac, a spare dinner jacket, and two spare new shirts. and occasionally brass knuckles, which never get used, but provide a bit of extra confidence.”—

    lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 06:11:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/40290506_288206108442953_70626961133

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/40290506_288206108442953_7062696113337270272_o_288206101776287.jpg Someone restored this ferrari concept car.

    Talk about low visibilty…..Someone restored this ferrari concept car.

    Talk about low visibilty…..

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 05:31:00 UTC

  • Identitaires contains a number of strains of political thought including varieti

    http://vidmax.com/video/178969-Fed-up-Europeans-Now-Have-a-University-Trained-to-Fight-Back-against-Leftist-and-Illegals—“Les Identitaires contains a number of strains of political thought including varieties of socialism, Catholic social teaching, direct democracy, regionalist decentralisation, and Yann Fouere’s concept of a Europe of 100 flags. The group additionally advocates an anti-Islamic foreign policy, calling Islam the major threat to Europe. It was founded in 2003 by some former members of Unité Radicale and several other anti-Zionist and National Bolshevik sympathisers. It included Fabrice Robert, former Unité Radicale member, former elected representative of the National Front (FN) and also former member of the National Republican Movement (MNR), and Guillaume Luyt, former member of the monarchist Action française, former Unité Radicale member, former director of the youth organisation of the FN, National Front Youth (FNJ). Luyt claims inspiration by Guillaume Faye’s works in the Nouvelle Droite movement.”—

    http://vidmax.com/video/178969-Fed-up-Europeans-Now-Have-a-University-Trained-to-Fight-Back-against-Leftist-and-IllegalsUpdated Aug 29, 2018, 3:32 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 03:32:00 UTC

  • by James Santagata 4 Phases Attack / Debate Strategy by Jewish Left* (You’ll not

    by James Santagata

    4 Phases Attack / Debate Strategy by Jewish Left*

    (You’ll notice Jewish right engages using fact, logic, etc. as a default, the left not)

    Phase 1: Pilpul – (Hebrew for pepper) tiring contortions to exhaust opponent while trying to mock and create the illusion of superior intellect (and morals).

    Phase 2: Bilbul – (Hebrew for confusion). If the opponent calls out and crushes the Pilpul, it moves to Bilbul which is to confuse and create havoc.

    Phase 3 – Bulbul – (Hebrew for “penis” or “dick”, child taunt / usage among Israelis), if one makes it past Pilpul and Bilbul the phase moves to Bulbul, name calling and pure ad hominems.

    Phase 4: BooBul: A faux-Hebrewization of English “booboo” ala “I done fucked up debating that guy!!!” + Hebrew “Bul” to create the neology and stay within and satisfy the rhyming / semi-alliterative patterns above.

    Phases 1-4 are predictive and simple patterns and techniques to quickly deflect, side step or crush Pilpul, Bilbul, Bulbul, and finally Boobul.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 03:20:00 UTC