Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Against Anarcho Capitalism (libertarianism)

    Feb 9, 2020, 10:47 AM The origins of Rothbard’s anarcho capitalism (a sophism) and Mises’ wing of Austrian economics( praxeology as a pseudoscience), are in the ethics Jews of the Pale and Russia:

    (a) evasion of payment for the commons, and (b) licensing of profit from baiting into hazard (usury, alcohol, prostitution, slave trading, gambling, organized crime), (c) specializing in use of the state against the people (tax collection, money changing), and (d) investing assets from these criminal activities into rent-seeking (non productive parasitic returns) and (e) slowly migrating into mixed criminal, black market, grey market, and open market industries (f) undermining the state, the law, their knowledge, their traditions, their culture, their institutions, and their norms in order to convert the state from suppression of local rents to maximization of rents.

  • “Curt: Are There Racial Differences in Climate Tolerance?”

    Feb 9, 2020, 12:58 PM

    —“Are Caucasian people more tolerant to colder climatic conditions than people with a higher concentration of melanin? If so, why?”— (from my post on quora)

    Thank you for asking the question. As far as I know, not really. It’s more that black people are more tolerant of heat and heat has a calming effect on us, and cold lets us work longer and harder. So body type and interests determine cold tolerance. But let’s go through the explanation of why. The human form evolved to run for long periods, exhaust prey, and then kill them when exhausted. We then adapted this frame to local climate and resource conditions around the world. ie: pygmies of africa, hobbits of the pacific, the Dutch and the Montenegrins as the tallest. There are three other factors that heavily influenced post hunter-gatherer evolution of the races: the need for warm climate people to mature early to resist disease, and the benefit of cold climate people to mature slowly making them more compliant when living in close quarters for long periods, and the survivability of those who can’t accumulate and mange capital in agrarian winters. People of the african race are more tolerant of hot conditions both because of their melanin and because both africans and east asians have more durable skin than whites – that’s why they wrinkle less. People of the african race were preferred for slaves in the plantation colonies because they have a higher resistance to both heat AND malaria – which was killing white workers faster than they could be supplied. People of the inuit are more tolerant of cold conditions because of their limb to torso ratio. White people are more tolerant long term of low light conditions. There is some evidence that people of the african race have lower metabolisms (see research on caloric expenditure of white vs black female students). But otherwise, in general, thinner frames will always tolerate heat better and heavier frames cold better. Or as veterinarians say “In the cold, horses and cows are like baked potatoes, and people are like french fries, but some of us are thicker french fries than others.” My current understanding is that white temperaments are more suitable to cold conditions. This is due to minor differences in personality traits distributions between the races. For example, while africans are less agreeable they are more prosocial (extroverted). Whites are more agreeable but less emotionally stable, and east asians even more agreeable and less emotionally stable – all of these data are consistent with the difference in neoteny between the races as the primary difference: east asians, whites, and africans – and all the admixtures between them, are at decreasing levels of neoteny (self domestication). and that self domestication is the result of environmental pressures in african, west eurasian, and east asian populations. NOTE: So, because this is an importance we don’t want to miss: there is somewhat disturbing trade off between neoteny producing more agreeable peaceful people with greater intellectual abilities and a decline in emotional stability by doing so. In other words, there is a balance we must seek. I’m saying this so that my fellow whites understand our women and we understand that there may be no further trade off by further neotonic development. There are quite a few difference between the races. The problem we have is in differentiating class and race differences. In other words, if you don’t account for genetic class you can misinterpret variations between races that are just differences in the size of the classes. In general, the asians have the smallest underclass – rice farming is brutal, whites have the next smallest underclass, white african admixture (hispanics, arabs) quite a bit larger, and african much larger. But what does that tell you? Nothing other than that it’s harder for underclasses to survive in cold climates agrarian civilizations, so the primary difference between the races is class size. And the average determines norms in a polity. Or said less ‘politically correct’ eugenics was the most important truth suppressed in the 20th century and is equal to the church’s suppression of science in the middle ages. Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • “Curt: Are There Racial Differences in Climate Tolerance?”

    Feb 9, 2020, 12:58 PM

    —“Are Caucasian people more tolerant to colder climatic conditions than people with a higher concentration of melanin? If so, why?”— (from my post on quora)

    Thank you for asking the question. As far as I know, not really. It’s more that black people are more tolerant of heat and heat has a calming effect on us, and cold lets us work longer and harder. So body type and interests determine cold tolerance. But let’s go through the explanation of why. The human form evolved to run for long periods, exhaust prey, and then kill them when exhausted. We then adapted this frame to local climate and resource conditions around the world. ie: pygmies of africa, hobbits of the pacific, the Dutch and the Montenegrins as the tallest. There are three other factors that heavily influenced post hunter-gatherer evolution of the races: the need for warm climate people to mature early to resist disease, and the benefit of cold climate people to mature slowly making them more compliant when living in close quarters for long periods, and the survivability of those who can’t accumulate and mange capital in agrarian winters. People of the african race are more tolerant of hot conditions both because of their melanin and because both africans and east asians have more durable skin than whites – that’s why they wrinkle less. People of the african race were preferred for slaves in the plantation colonies because they have a higher resistance to both heat AND malaria – which was killing white workers faster than they could be supplied. People of the inuit are more tolerant of cold conditions because of their limb to torso ratio. White people are more tolerant long term of low light conditions. There is some evidence that people of the african race have lower metabolisms (see research on caloric expenditure of white vs black female students). But otherwise, in general, thinner frames will always tolerate heat better and heavier frames cold better. Or as veterinarians say “In the cold, horses and cows are like baked potatoes, and people are like french fries, but some of us are thicker french fries than others.” My current understanding is that white temperaments are more suitable to cold conditions. This is due to minor differences in personality traits distributions between the races. For example, while africans are less agreeable they are more prosocial (extroverted). Whites are more agreeable but less emotionally stable, and east asians even more agreeable and less emotionally stable – all of these data are consistent with the difference in neoteny between the races as the primary difference: east asians, whites, and africans – and all the admixtures between them, are at decreasing levels of neoteny (self domestication). and that self domestication is the result of environmental pressures in african, west eurasian, and east asian populations. NOTE: So, because this is an importance we don’t want to miss: there is somewhat disturbing trade off between neoteny producing more agreeable peaceful people with greater intellectual abilities and a decline in emotional stability by doing so. In other words, there is a balance we must seek. I’m saying this so that my fellow whites understand our women and we understand that there may be no further trade off by further neotonic development. There are quite a few difference between the races. The problem we have is in differentiating class and race differences. In other words, if you don’t account for genetic class you can misinterpret variations between races that are just differences in the size of the classes. In general, the asians have the smallest underclass – rice farming is brutal, whites have the next smallest underclass, white african admixture (hispanics, arabs) quite a bit larger, and african much larger. But what does that tell you? Nothing other than that it’s harder for underclasses to survive in cold climates agrarian civilizations, so the primary difference between the races is class size. And the average determines norms in a polity. Or said less ‘politically correct’ eugenics was the most important truth suppressed in the 20th century and is equal to the church’s suppression of science in the middle ages. Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

  • The State

    Feb 9, 2020, 1:32 PM The state is the only de-facto sovereign (organization) in competition with other polities for territory, resources, trade routes, built capital, and population. The state maintains that sovereignty as an insurer of last resort, maintaining a monopoly of violence in its capacity of insurer of last resort. It obtains income to pay for its function as an insurer of last resort, through fees sufficient to provide insurance against all competitors. The state adds value by suppression of all competitors to it’s fees, using the judicial system – thereby freeing the population from many high friction transaction costs in exchange for one low friction transaction cost (taxes). This is why states are always wealthier than non states – economic velocity. The government produces commons in addition to the states in order to generate the returns from commons – organizing the production of non-consumables prohibiting privatization by consumption ‘abusus’, but by allowing “usus” (use), creating ‘fructus’ (fruits). The production of commons increases population, trade, and therefore revenues that can be distributed between the production of common when times are fair(good), and functioning as insurer of last resort when times are dear (hard). Since the cost of both sovereignty and commons is only determined by market competition, then we have no say about the construction of state, military, judiciary, government, and institutions. We have only say in how competitive we desire to be and the relative conditions we live under. To produce a relatively anarchic polity would require only the production of sufficient military capability to deny all competitors, and retaining population and production necessary to pay for it, with the commons necessary to retain that population. In other words you don’t get to choose very much if you want to survive as a polity. The only means of minimizing a government long term is to do what I’ve recommended, which is exhaustive application of the law of reciprocity limiting allr ents, and then a payment (tax) system that was as closests to operating a business as possible. And that would require, exactly what I’ve proposed.

  • The State

    Feb 9, 2020, 1:32 PM The state is the only de-facto sovereign (organization) in competition with other polities for territory, resources, trade routes, built capital, and population. The state maintains that sovereignty as an insurer of last resort, maintaining a monopoly of violence in its capacity of insurer of last resort. It obtains income to pay for its function as an insurer of last resort, through fees sufficient to provide insurance against all competitors. The state adds value by suppression of all competitors to it’s fees, using the judicial system – thereby freeing the population from many high friction transaction costs in exchange for one low friction transaction cost (taxes). This is why states are always wealthier than non states – economic velocity. The government produces commons in addition to the states in order to generate the returns from commons – organizing the production of non-consumables prohibiting privatization by consumption ‘abusus’, but by allowing “usus” (use), creating ‘fructus’ (fruits). The production of commons increases population, trade, and therefore revenues that can be distributed between the production of common when times are fair(good), and functioning as insurer of last resort when times are dear (hard). Since the cost of both sovereignty and commons is only determined by market competition, then we have no say about the construction of state, military, judiciary, government, and institutions. We have only say in how competitive we desire to be and the relative conditions we live under. To produce a relatively anarchic polity would require only the production of sufficient military capability to deny all competitors, and retaining population and production necessary to pay for it, with the commons necessary to retain that population. In other words you don’t get to choose very much if you want to survive as a polity. The only means of minimizing a government long term is to do what I’ve recommended, which is exhaustive application of the law of reciprocity limiting allr ents, and then a payment (tax) system that was as closests to operating a business as possible. And that would require, exactly what I’ve proposed.

  • Limits

    Feb 9, 2020, 1:36 PM

    The via-positiva free market in goods, services, and information, will regulate itself if very small. The via-negativa market for prosecution of regulates the free market if it is other than very small. 😉

    And notice that free market advocates always and everywhere are trying to commit irreciprocity, by using income statement rather than balance sheet measures – just like neo-liberals. This is a law of economics.Sorry.You can’t get around it logically or empirically. Libertarians use reductio sophisms just like philosophers.

  • Limits

    Feb 9, 2020, 1:36 PM

    The via-positiva free market in goods, services, and information, will regulate itself if very small. The via-negativa market for prosecution of regulates the free market if it is other than very small. 😉

    And notice that free market advocates always and everywhere are trying to commit irreciprocity, by using income statement rather than balance sheet measures – just like neo-liberals. This is a law of economics.Sorry.You can’t get around it logically or empirically. Libertarians use reductio sophisms just like philosophers.

  • Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance

    Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM

    —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance to an average performing trustworthy soldier, but it’s an easy choice of who you want on your side.”–Steve Pender

  • Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance

    Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM

    —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance to an average performing trustworthy soldier, but it’s an easy choice of who you want on your side.”–Steve Pender

  • We Must Think to Rule of Law and Paternalism

    Feb 10, 2020, 8:54 AM

    —“We must think beyond capitalism and socialism”–Nicholas J. Fuentes @NickJFuentes

    Nick: 1) It was a false dichotomy: to replace rule of law(Local Capitalism) vs Discretionary Rule (International socialism). Individual Sovereignty requires Rule of Law (of Reciprocity) Jury, Thang(Council),Senate, King, Markets in Everything. Tripartism requires three economies. 2) The three economies in Tripartism are Markets, Protected Markets(Guilds, Unions), Limited Markets, Non Market (Dependents). 3) Trust necessary to produce those markets requires ethnic homogeneity, 4) Ethnocentrism is the optimum military, political, economic,and social order. 5)The enemy always seeks monopoly under the pretense of possible equality. Our people have always sought empirical markets that provide direction for those lacking agency, freedom and protection for those with some, liberty for those with more, and excellents for those with most. 6) The enemy uses False Promise of Freedom from the consequences of Nature’s Laws (genetics), to Bait those lacking agency into Hazard (harm), to generate conflict, that undermines our means of cooperation by markets, limited markets, and non-market cooperation. 7) In the ancient world the Enemy used the monopolies of judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to invade and destroy by supernaturalism. In the modern world the Enemy used the monopolies of Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Feminism, Postmodernism,by pseudoscience. 8) There is only one source of soverginty-in-fact, liberty, freedom, and subsidy: that is the organized use of warfare to defend the polity from alternatives – especially those that sell the impossible to destroy ethnicity, culture, civlization, by baiting into hazard.