Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE THREE LITTLE BEARS AND EUROPEAN GENETIC PORRIDGE I don’t understand the ques

    THE THREE LITTLE BEARS AND EUROPEAN GENETIC PORRIDGE

    I don’t understand the question. Europoids are the result of ice age endurance by hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers, were then nearly replaced by Neolithic farmers. Neolithic farmers by steppe herders. We are a combination of all three, driven by male selection. (Women make nests and stay, young men expand the radius – capturing territory and women).

    Sometime around 43,000 BC, the ancestors of the Early European Farmers (EEF) split from Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHGs), and again appear to have split from Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers (CHGs) around 23,000 BC. Around 20,000 bc the glaciers stop growing.

    This produced a north-south cline we still see today from the very white north of Russia to the caucuses, from the caucuses to the not so white south of the Levant, to the not white people of southern Saudi Arabia.

    Similarly, around 24,000 bc we see the evolution of the Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who rapidly expand and disappear westward into the hunter-gatherers, and eastward into what would become the Siberian-Americans.(there are no native americans. And the second wave of Siberians were more asiatic and nearly exterminated the first wave, in a cline north to south.).

    The East Asian data is slowly accumulating, but they are almost as isolated by their mountains deserts, cold, and ocians, as are the africans by the desert and oceans, so they arrive from the south, and they saw less admixture with only three events, the last one being tiny. (we dont know where their features came from – or at least I ‘m not willing to commit to any of the theories). So the agrarian expansion combined with the Han expansion (which is continuing in tibet and mongolia, and threatens Vietnam), continues. Make no mistake that the chinese are the most successful empire in history, producing the most forcible integration in history. And they do it without religion (lies). They do it with burueacratic management and time.

    The chessboard is set by the retreat of the glaciers. all these populations are somewhat distinct. As far as I know proto-populations in europe, levant, iran, and north Eurasia are as different as Europeans and Asians are today.

    By 10,000 bc the ice age is over, and the various floods result. Very shortly thereafter the domestication of animals (pigs and sheep), and very quickly the agrarian revolution begins. ~8000bc.

    Today’s populations are the result of two rapid expansions that demonstrate technology is more influential than natural selection: the agrarian expansions in Eurasia and China, followed by the IE expansion in Eurasia.

    These two expansions homogenized by hybridization (racialized) what had been a far higher number of racially distinct human groups.

    What I find interesting is that the favorable traits: Height, Light Skin, Blue Eyes, Blonde Hair, Sociability, Agency, Milk, and Grain tolerance end up in Europeans thus maintaining medium neoteny without sexual neoteny as in east Asia. Despite the fact that these traits evolved in different places in different groups.

    This is one of the key insights I’ve had.

    East Asians overplayed neoteny. Africans, Austronesians (impulsivity) and Semites underplayed neoteny (aggression). Europeans collected highly desirable features abandoning primitive rapid maturity, deep morphology, and lack of agency (Africa) without sacrificing reproductive desirability (east Asians), or carrying reproductive undesirability to extremes (Australians).

    In other words, Europeans selected for symbolic neoteny without significant suppression of sexual maturity. Thus creating a balance between impulsive and rapidly maturing Africans, and calm slowly maturing east Asians.

    It’s like the three little bears: “this one is just right”.

    But while those factors produce a sexual market value, with the sweet spots in Indian brahmins and northern Europeans along the west to east cline, the quality of life of a people is largely produced NOT by those features, by CLASS selection. In other words: domestication (neoteny). So neoteny can be achieved by any of the races and subraces with time – not much time really. A few centuries at most.

    If the group has the will for it.

    “Tech beats genes.” Physical, political-social, and conceptual-informational.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 12:17:00 UTC

  • Look. Simple. The postwar jewish intellectuals brought the bolshevik revolution

    Look. Simple. The postwar jewish intellectuals brought the bolshevik revolution to the states, and transformed it first into neo-marxism, then finally into postmodernism-feminism-libertarianism in order to reverse the demonstration of the darwinian revolution that european civ, not only in the modern, but ancient world, was eugenic. And that this bolshevism, like french moralism, and german phenominalism, is simply a more AGGRESSIVE counter-revolution against the restoration of europeanism (aristotle), and the restoration of germany (the holy roman empire, greater germania, western europe), to it’s historical trejectory as a west indo european aristocrxatic eugenic civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-23 06:54:00 UTC

  • One worth reading. Ten hours of this today…. Now, I get to spend another ten..

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209020673Finally. One worth reading. Ten hours of this today…. Now, I get to spend another ten… lol.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982209020673Updated Sep 22, 2020, 11:22 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 23:22:00 UTC

  • “Curt Doolittle What is your opinion on the future of the “internationalised” su

    —“Curt Doolittle What is your opinion on the future of the “internationalised” supply chain? Will the jobs problem in the economies that have outsourced production of goods & services compel politicians to be not so enthusiastic about global supply chains or will it be business as usual i.e. outsourcing to low wage jurisdictions?”—Rakesh Sahgal

    I think the global system is over as soon as american defense of it is over, because americans and british (mostly british) built it. But international stability is no longer in american or british interests – the opposite.

    My policy recommendations are to cut all labor arbitrage in favor of higher prices but local employment. If my policy says that then you can bet there are hundreds of other guys in the wings with more influence in DC with the same ideas.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 22:28:00 UTC

  • This has explanatory power but I don’t know what research it’s coming from, and

    This has explanatory power but I don’t know what research it’s coming from, and i’m suspicious.

    —“…there were several migrations from Eurasia into Africa. The Khoi and San populations are descendants of a back-migration from Asia. Additionally, it was found that the Austronesian expansion had also stronger influence on Africa than suggested before. Between 1% to 10% of eastern Africans have East Asian-related ancestry from Austronesians.”—

    ( Göran Dahl? )

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 22:13:00 UTC

  • Conclusion from Yuan et al. 2019: —“We have shown that there are only three ma

    Conclusion from Yuan et al. 2019:

    —“We have shown that there are only three major human groups, Africans (Negroid), East Asians (Mongoloid), and Europeans/Indians (Caucasoid). Aboriginal Australians and the related Papuans, traditionally viewed as the fourth major group, in fact consist of largely European/Indian and African genomes and their unique traits might have come from admixture of incoming Neanderthals with local archaic humans.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 21:41:00 UTC

  • No. A modern government, capable of issuing its own currency, cannot go bankrupt

    No.

    A modern government, capable of issuing its own currency, cannot go bankrupt per se. It cannot be unable to pay its debts as long as the debts are denominated in the government’s currency.

    It can just pay off its DEBTES as a counterfeiter could.

    What the government CAN do is print and SPEND money and inflate its way into zero purchasing power.

    When people look at Venezuela or zimbabwe or most failed state economies, it’s because the government has spent the currency out of purchasing power. But there are a lot of ways to do that.

    This is more difficult in relatively autarkic countries (America, France) that consume their own production and import very little than it is for countries that depend on imports and exports because of insufficient local production and productivity.

    If you need imports and you spend your currency into low purchasing power, you might be able to get credit, or credit denominated in foreign currencies. And then you can go bankrupt on that debt. (ie: Greece).

    If you need imports (particularly energy), and you spend your currency into zero purchasing power, then you’re the equivalent of bankrupt. Not because you have no money to spend, but because the money you have to spend has no purchasing power (isn’t worth anything.)

    The problem European countries have, especially Italy, is that they can’t control their currencies so they can’t inflate away their debt by printing money. Occasional Inflating away debt (printing money to pay off debt) isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it takes time for such payments to work their way through the economy.

    Borrowing against yourself – meaning printing money you expect to collect later in taxes somehow, or otherwise, turn into some sort of returns on capital (like airports or railways our energy production), isn’t a bad thing either. What you want to avoid is systemically affecting the pricing structure so that finance, industry, business, and consumers alter their behavior (stop spending).

    What causes problems for all governments are ‘rents’ (privileges). Like.. you know, all those benefits we like to have. All those government salaries. …

    Why is this problem serious? Because there is no feedback loop, so the problem of market correction is extended into the government leading to ‘government correction’ – and that’s really, really, really, bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 20:36:00 UTC

  • —-”Q: Curt: Was communism ever a good idea in Russia?”—- (a) Russia practice Sta

    —-”Q: Curt: Was communism ever a good idea in Russia?”—-

    (a) Russia practice State Socialism, with a central economy, and it was never possible to achieve communism. (It never will be). And using the communist-to-socialist (platonic) frame of reference confuses the issue. Instead, Russia created a fully militarized State, and ran the country as **an industrial age military organization**.

    (b) A military doesn’t use the market process. It creates a command economy. It organizes to produce strategic goals. The benefit of a militarized society with a command economy, is that without a market process it does not need to pay market wages. Everyone has a ‘rank’ with prescribed benefits. In this sense, Russia took Napoleonic ‘total war’ to the extreme, as a permanent political, economic, social, and familial order. Her only mistake was in attempting to ideologically expand. She made the same mistake as Hitler: ideology over empiricism.

    (c) So the **benefit** of a military order over a market order is that the savings from not having to pay market wages (wages always consume profits), could be invested in the production of commons. It’s this massive production of commons that allowed Russia to modernize.

    (d) the **drawback** is i) the problem incentives, ii) the problem of economic calculation, iii) the problem of skill atrophy, iv) the problem of creating a market for corruption, v) the problem of creating a black market, vi) the (severe) externalites that are caused by policing the problem of incentives, economic calculation, skill atrophy, corruption, and black markets. Unfortunately, Soviets (Russians) did not know how to transition out of a military economy. Observing the consequences, the Chinese copied the americans instead of the Russians and used debt and cheap labor to indusrialize at the rest of the world’s expense just as america did to europe in the 1800’s.

    (e) **Consequences**: The russians have escapted the degredation of culture since the 1960’s brought about by the ewish postwar migration of insurgency from germany to america, and the conversion of the marxist program to the neo-marxist, postmodernist, anti-male feminist program (culminating in the 2020 attempt to repeat the Bolshevik revolution here in america using BLM/Antifa).

    The west may not survive the next few decades. Russia will – and she will very likely pick up the pieces ‘for cheap’.

    In retrospect, the Fascists created a corporate state, as defense against communists that created a military state. The British and Americans failed to grasp the seriousness of the threat of communism, as a repeat of the christian destructino of rome, and the muslim destruction of the ancient world. The Chinese are not christian and not idealistic: they have adopted fascism: intolerant, ethnocentric, state corporatism, and total war. But they have used credit (the anglo invention of scale finance) to achieve what the Soviets failed to, and in doing so demonstrated that the fascists were not unique, they were simply practicing the norm in history. And chinese in doing so have restored history to it’s regular state now that the european age of optimism is ended.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 19:40:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONY —“I was so offended when I read “elevated intelligence of East Asian

    TESTIMONY

    —“I was so offended when I read “elevated intelligence of East Asians and Western Europeans” in your response. But I get what you are saying now! I never really understood the after effects of Eugenics. In the social discourse its always framed as a bad idea that never took root. Oh Yes it did! I would like to read more about of your studies.”— (Quora Reader)

    Thanks. We are not very different really. We hybridize too quickly when there is an evolutionary advantage. The primary difference is (a) degree of neoteny, (b) size of the underclass. ( c) the technology of ‘culture’ meaning group strategy, mythology, traditions, norms, and method of persuasion(argument). (d) technology in general spreads more rapidly than cultural technology or genes.

    This means all human groups can (eventually) achieve parity if they limit the reproduction of the underclasses. This is, however, a very difficult thing to do if you need to alter a lare population (india). A very difficult thing for a government to do under democracy (modern europe, south america), and harder to do under a religion that favors the underclass (the middle east).

    This is why only east Asians and Europeans did it in the past: 1) a powerful aristocratic class, 2) homogenous enough polities that it doesn’t pit tribes or clans against one another. 3) The desire to keep the costs of conflict down (economic self interest).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 19:06:00 UTC

  • “Q: Curt: Why is Russia not in the top 10 of the 2019 global competitiveness ind

    —“Q: Curt: Why is Russia not in the top 10 of the 2019 global competitiveness index?”—

    THE SOCIAL ANSWER

    Read the comment [on Quora] by Dima Vorobiev as it gives the Russian perspective – which isn’t wrong so to speak. In particular, it’s still a hierarchical rather than majority middle-class civilization. They don’t have the institutions of, or morals of, a rule of law people like northern Europeans – these are rules of a majority middle-class civilization. They don’t have a participatory government – that is a system of middle-class majority civilization. Northern Europeans developed rule of law because we developed a majority middle-class civilization (West Ukraine did – it was under Austrian rule, hence the division in Ukraine.). Russia only stopped serfdom in the late 19th century, never developed a middle class, and transitioned right into Bolshevism, Leninism, Soviet Communism. So, instead, as Dima states, they remain an aristocratic civilization, where there is an aristocratic political class, an aristocratic commercial class, and ‘the people’. My experience of life in Ukraine and Russia (which I prefer to America), that the people go about their civil and family work, the business class goes about its business, and the state goes about its business, and as such there is less conflict because everyone isn’t involved in everyone else’s business – which is a good thing since they don’t know enough to do so. (Unlike the presumption of Americans.) Russia had to bear the soviet era but has not fallen for western ‘decadence’ (destruction of the family, morals, civil life, and social responsibility). Family and civil life are still meaningful. And the only problem is the time it takes to create infrastructure and employment across eleven terribly cold time zones with only 140m people with an economy the size of Texas.

    THE ECONOMIC ANSWER:

    The correct answer is of course that the GCI is a political tool as much as an empirical one. Russia like China has been through the perils of the international system, which favors certain countries and not others.

    The principle answer is Time. They need more time to develop. Unreported in the west is Putin’s success at creating rule of law in Russia. Overreported in the west is the Russian use of Jingoism to inspire the people. If you view Russia from the lens of 1992 until today, it’s not as grand as china, but it’s pretty impressive.

    The second reason – which is just plain incomprehensible – is the decline the Russian workforce which is particularly suited to engineering and technology work (I prefer to hire them myself). This decline is due to declines in education and is in part due to the increase in (bad) entertainment. Seriously. Russians had the world’s best education system. And it needs it.

    The third reason is the condition of the financial sector, which is not sufficiently entrepreneurial (risk-tolerant). This is (in my opinion) the central problem. Until sanctions are lifted OR Russia succeeds in building a sufficiently trustworthy entrepreneurial credit sector, it will be difficult to get the 1/3 of the population who still lives in ‘rustic’ conditions, out of them.

    The fourth reason is the low trust society and its impact on rule of law. I tried to buy about a dozen tech companies in Russia rather than start one and it’s impossible to determine what’s true; difficult to trust a contract will hold; So relationships matter and always will. Russia is just like Americans except they trust the government 1000x less, and friends and family 1000x more.

    In other words, Russians wouldn’t take this report very seriously. It just feeds into the hands of the same people who spent the past 70 years putting us in the current precarious position.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-22 18:07:00 UTC