Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • CURT: WHAT ARE JUVENILIZATION, NEOTENY, AND PEDOMORPHISM? —“What is juveniliza

    CURT: WHAT ARE JUVENILIZATION, NEOTENY, AND PEDOMORPHISM?

    —“What is juvenilization?”—

    Look up Paedomorphism and Neoteny: selection for immaturity. The same way we select for immaturity and produce dogs from wolves, we produce white civlization and chinese civlization by selection for immaturity.

    In different regions of the globe, there is a greater advantage to fast maturity due to the fragility of the young and the high incidences of mortality. In other reasons there is no advantage to fast maturity and selection for juvenile traits is not a disadvantage. the same applies for simple and complex social orders.

    Juvenilizatoin is nearly impossible for africans because of the disease gradient in their region, and a bit harder in the other hot climates for similar reasons.

    If you select for Neoteny you will get a big head, a smaller body, and finer facial features. If you do not you will get smaller heads, and stronger facial features.

    As we can see in our ape cousins, humans evolved from prior states primarily through neoteny, which gave us higher heat dissipation, which gave us our most important (and often uncredited) advantage: we can form a pack using pointy-things, and run-down any life form on earth. We cannot run fastest but we can run longer than any other life form. We also gained time. time to ‘consider’. And with consideration time to judge between impulse and reason.

    Once we developed modern humans (all apes are white by the way, and blackness is an adaptation to sun exposure on the skin), we could then adapt modern humans to environments – some assisting us in further neoteny, and others in surviving hostile environments. Some bigger some smaller. Some with deeper maturity some with less. Some more social some less social – and so on.

    In other words, yes, some subraces are far more ‘advanced’ genetically than others. and some are not very advanced at all.

    But the fact remains that all races consist of a distribution, and there is substantial overlap. So the principle issue is kin selection given the distributon of the subrace. In other words, we always act as kin, and kin require norms that suit the supermajority in the center of the distribution, and this is the problem of conflictd between peoples with different distributions.

    You don’t see problems with east asians and whites.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 03:50:00 UTC

  • Well, it’s just another version of Marxism, right? Central control of resources

    Well, it’s just another version of Marxism, right? Central control of resources by some self selected elite in order to pursue some end chosen by those elites?

    So instead of pursuing a worker revolution. Instead of pursuing equality under the law. Instead of pursuing equality of opportunity. Instead of pursuing equality of condition. Instead of pursuing equality of outcome. Instead of pursuing the end of class oppression, of economic oppression, of racial oppression, of gender oppression, and now of identity oppression, the left wants once again to control resources and opportunities they cannot demonstrate the ability to conceive, organize, and produce, they want that control *without* demonstrating merit?

    What record do democratic governments have of good choices? Any? What do good any governments that are in the lead do? Nothing. Government can drive change if the change is produced elsewhere and the people need to ‘catch up’. But they cannot know what hypothetical goods to pursue.

    And for that matter, who is of the opinion that we are already not enduring change faster than our minds, norms, cultures, philosophies, laws, and institutions can adapt to on empirical evidence? We can’t.

    We cannot know ‘the good’ other than by discovering something that works and determining what is good. The via positiva fallacy is that we can know what is good, other than what is bad.

    We can know what is bad. We can act via negativa to eliminate the bad, and devote resources only to the potential goods.

    We know the central ‘bad’: overpopulation by a vast world underclass.

    The central problem we face is the REDUCTION OF THE SCALE OF THE UNDER CLASSES.

    The rest of the opportunities are rapidly exploited by the private sector as fast as we can manage them. And the only ones they private sector can’t do is space exploration.

    No. So no. All this wisfhul thinking is nonsense. FInd something we are behind on that is already proven and government can do that. Find soething that the market CAN’T do that is basic reserach, and maybe that is ok.

    Otherwise, governement does one thing: pilfer as much as it can to distribute to cronies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 20:04:00 UTC

  • WHAT DID MARX GET RIGHT? (NOTHING) He articulated class as a conflict rather tha

    WHAT DID MARX GET RIGHT? (NOTHING)

    He articulated class as a conflict rather than as genetic differences in ability that the aristocracies since the dawn of western civilization had correctly observed. Hence human animal > slave > serf > freeman > burgher > church(nobility) > aristocracy (peerage).

    It’s not that his observation was new, its that his observation was wrong. The east and the west succeeded in no small party by the continuous reduction of the size of the underclass by upward redistribution of reproduction.

    Today we know that each person in the underclass is six times as costly as any individual in the middle class can produce in surplus of his consumption.

    There is a reason Marx is taught as fantasy literature of historical curiosity only: he was wrong about almost everything.

    The problem is quite different: the middle class seizure of the state under capitalism under the rubric of equality and democracy is incompatible with the evidence: at every standard deviation in ability, humans are demonstrably superior in every way. So much so that at two standard deviations, the ability to communicate on other than trivialities disappears.

    Marx created a fantasy, as did Boaz and Freud. Why? the same reason that Maxwell, Menger, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, were right: the middle class seizure of power DID upset the natural order. The natural order being a hierarchy of the classes with the aristocracy organizing the suppression of parasitism driving everyone into the market to survive; the middle class experimenting, inventing, financing, entrepreneurship, planning, organizing, and collecting the resources of which labor is merely one input.

    What marx got mostly wrong, is that all the value is created by the middle and upper class, and the working class is the chief beneficiary of organizing them to produce consumer goods that they can now afford to purchase because they lack the ability to perform the middle class and upper class functions otherwise.

    That’s the science of it.

    The people who benefit from consumer capitalism are the working class. My ancestors were far happier with their higher status in previous generations than the relative equality with the lower classes under consumer capitalism. And imagine how the aristocracy feels.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 19:47:00 UTC

  • “Compatibility, complementarity, and reciprocity are truths. Equality and equity

    —“Compatibility, complementarity, and reciprocity are truths. Equality and equity are falsehoods.”— Adam Walker

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 17:50:00 UTC

  • ( can someone with a better pulse on current culture explain to me what shift is

    ( can someone with a better pulse on current culture explain to me what shift is going on? Something is happening in our favor and I don’t know what it is. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 17:00:00 UTC

  • I wanted to write about this last year. Much better job than I would have done.

    I wanted to write about this last year. Much better job than I would have done. 😉

    Women want you to read their minds and approach them if they would be interested in you but not bear the cost of saying no if they’ aren’t interested in you, and especially if your interest in them contradicts their self- perceived value in the market.

    Personally, I just talk to women and then let them hit on me somehow or other. I’m too clueless to know otherwise. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 16:39:00 UTC

  • PROFESSIONALIZING BANKING AND FINANCE It’s really not complicated. Privately fun

    PROFESSIONALIZING BANKING AND FINANCE

    It’s really not complicated.

    Privately funded Loans used as input for production distribution trade and profit can accrue interest, paid symmetrically, rather than front loaded.

    You can sell a fractional interest in a loan, but you cannot convey responsibility for a loan beyond the individual who ‘measured’ it (originated it.) ( This is one of the most important applications of blockchain technology: the fractional shares of interest. )

    The originator must take full losses on each and every loan he originates before the losses are transferred to those those that have purchased factional interest.

    Originated loans may not be bundled or attached as a criteria of fractional sale in any way as each is unique and it is impossible to aggregate them.

    All originated loans must be traceable to an individual originator.

    All originators must possess a Series Seven or equivalent license thereof. All such holders must possess insurance.

    CONSUMER LOANS

    Consumers may borrow directly from the treasury, through an agent, and no interest may be charged directly or indirectly for consumer purchase, possession, use, and non-transfer of a consumable good.

    The only fees for this consumer borrowing from the treasury shall be commission fees, which will consist of costs plus a percentage of costs.

    The maximum duration of a consumer loan is the half life of the replacement life of portable property, and fifteen years for primary residency.

    PURPOSE

    To elminate interest on consumer loans.

    To redirect all consumer interest to the commons (end privatization of profits from fiat currency).

    To end the impossibilty of transferring prices for unique objects to others.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 15:12:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK) Interesting. Was searching for c

    THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)

    Interesting. Was searching for colloquial opinions on “legislating from the bench” and found this page.

    DECIDABILITY (LOGIC) VS JUDGEMENT (OPINION)

    1) If the Natural Law of reciprocity exists, all questions of law should be decidable by a test of reciprocity. (They are.)

    2) If the constitution was intended as an implementation of Natural Law, then all question of law under natural law should be decidable. (It was, They are).

    3) In those cases of contracts of the commons (legislation, and regulation) that consist of contract provisions (trades) constructed under Natural Law, the terms of the contract may be undecidable given the terms specified in the contract. (painfully common)

    4) In those cases that are undecidable by the Court, because of the insufficiency of the terms of the Contract of the Commons (legislation and regulation) the court has the obligation, (as was intended by the constitution) to return the decision to the legislature rather than to ARBITRARILY provide decidability by subjective preference.

    5) In those cases that are undecidable by the court because the terms of the Contract of the Commons conflict with Natural Law, then the Court has the OBLIGATION to return the decision to the Legislature to correct the contract of the commons (legislation, and regulation) so that conflicts under the contract are decidable.

    6) In those cases that the legislature cannot construct legislation that is decidable by the judiciary because the terms of the contract for the commons is undecidable under the terms of the constitution, the legislature may propose to the legislature of the states (Congress) an amendment to the constitution that would permit decidability of such matters as cannot be decided under natural law, and the contracts of the commons we call legislation and regulation.

    FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS

    1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it.

    But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms.

    2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation.

    3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition.

    THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT

    The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient.

    1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created.

    2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it.

    3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law.

    4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights).

    5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, *despite* lack of reciprocity by foreign states.

    THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW

    Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem.

    The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here).

    The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions?

    The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 14:53:00 UTC

  • ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS (the koran licen

    ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS

    (the koran licenses terrorists)

    Christians and Jews went through the enlightenment and the reformation, and the legal and scientific revolutions. The evil in the west has been caused by the re-introduction of abrahamism (christianity, judaism, and islam) in the forms of Jewish Marxism, and French Postmodernism, and less so by Anglo Egalitarianism. And now we’re dealing with the only people who have failed to go through the enlightenment, and historicize, rationalize, and legalize their customs.

    So the point I’m making is that if you DON’T convert the Koran into uninterpretable (Decidable) propositions, then DE FACTO, all interpretation of the Koran IS IN FACT licensed by the Book, the religion, and all muslims.

    In other words, the jihadis and terrorists are in fact practicing Islam because it is possible to interpret islam from the book as such, because the inability to interpret islam in that way is not restated in a new version of the Book.

    And my argument is, that if it was restated, then it would be untenable for western authors.

    Which is why I suspect western authors will, as some of them have begun to, state the Koran in legal verse.

    We know that the book is a fabrication just as was the Jewish Bible, and the Christian Bible. We know the Koran was only Codified a century ago. We have begun producing an historical literature demonstrating that Mohammed is no more real a character than Jesus, Arthur, or Siegfried.

    We have not however converted it to a set of statements of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 12:16:00 UTC

  • MORE ON TRADEMARKS There is a great difference between an imitation, a likeness,

    MORE ON TRADEMARKS

    There is a great difference between an imitation, a likeness, and a similarity. Trademarks prohibit imitation, require distinction such that products differ in likeness, but do not prohibit similarity. The consumer must not be fooled, nor may the consumer purchase a signal good, and then display it as an act of fraud. However, one may not possess a claim to an idea.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 11:51:00 UTC