Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • natsionalʹni druzhyny

    Національні Дружини
    IN UKRAINE THE “NATIONAL TEAM” (or SQUAD) Pronounced: …. natsionalʹni druzhyny …. nat-see-uhn-AL-nee, drew-zh-ee-nee Facebook Page …. https://www.facebook.com/ndrugua

  • natsionalʹni druzhyny

    Національні Дружини
    IN UKRAINE THE “NATIONAL TEAM” (or SQUAD) Pronounced: …. natsionalʹni druzhyny …. nat-see-uhn-AL-nee, drew-zh-ee-nee Facebook Page …. https://www.facebook.com/ndrugua

  • —“Curt: Are Russians Part of The West?”–

    1) Russians are certainly ethnic europeans, and at least in southern russia and ukraine, the purest ethnic europeans. 2) Russians are Aryans (which is a cultural tradition). 3) Russians are christians. 4) Russian is a slavic branch of the indo european languages. HOWEVER Russians did not go through (a) the enlightenment, (b) the renaissance, (c) the development of a middle class (d) and the development of rule of law in support of middle class economies. The reason for being being that they were conquered by the mongols and russian territory is more hostile to trade (lacking trade routes) than the rest of europe. (much like canada today). Russians were heavily enserfed, and only liberated in the 1800’s and then put back under the soviet (communist) version of serfdom. And only recently forced into a middle class trajectory. Once put on that trajectory, certain (((anti-russian))) minorities preyed upon the people, and Putin stopped that predation again. (So, this is the reason for russian preference for power and suspicion of liberalism. ) The communists were successful in industrializing the country but were unable to transfer from their (corruption) bureaucracy to middle class rule as are the chinese slowly doing. The communists were successful in preserving the family as an institution. Conversely, in most respects, Russian education is far better than the west. As such there is an asymmetry between russian culture and education (which is *far* superior) and western commerce and commercial law (which is far superior). We tend to make all or nothing propositions but this is a mistake. The optimum is the blend of american russian and german cultures. High risk american innovation, disciplined german production, and intolerant russian conservatism. Personally I love them. The more masculine and feminine and the more traditional and intolerant the better.

  • —“Curt: Are Russians Part of The West?”–

    1) Russians are certainly ethnic europeans, and at least in southern russia and ukraine, the purest ethnic europeans. 2) Russians are Aryans (which is a cultural tradition). 3) Russians are christians. 4) Russian is a slavic branch of the indo european languages. HOWEVER Russians did not go through (a) the enlightenment, (b) the renaissance, (c) the development of a middle class (d) and the development of rule of law in support of middle class economies. The reason for being being that they were conquered by the mongols and russian territory is more hostile to trade (lacking trade routes) than the rest of europe. (much like canada today). Russians were heavily enserfed, and only liberated in the 1800’s and then put back under the soviet (communist) version of serfdom. And only recently forced into a middle class trajectory. Once put on that trajectory, certain (((anti-russian))) minorities preyed upon the people, and Putin stopped that predation again. (So, this is the reason for russian preference for power and suspicion of liberalism. ) The communists were successful in industrializing the country but were unable to transfer from their (corruption) bureaucracy to middle class rule as are the chinese slowly doing. The communists were successful in preserving the family as an institution. Conversely, in most respects, Russian education is far better than the west. As such there is an asymmetry between russian culture and education (which is *far* superior) and western commerce and commercial law (which is far superior). We tend to make all or nothing propositions but this is a mistake. The optimum is the blend of american russian and german cultures. High risk american innovation, disciplined german production, and intolerant russian conservatism. Personally I love them. The more masculine and feminine and the more traditional and intolerant the better.

  • Fat Tailed Male IQ Scores

    –“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.

  • Fat Tailed Male IQ Scores

    –“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.

  • Individualism Is a “weasel Word”

    Sovereignty can be tested by violations of interests that we categorically refer to as Property in Toto. A man is sovereign or he is not. He can demonstrate reciprocity in sovereignty or the cannot. Individualism, like non aggression, is just a weasel word for not defining the scope of interests against which one cannot impose costs, and the institutional means by which such a condition is created and preserved, against competition from those with different intentions. Sovereignty is an empirically testable definition. Individualism is just a means of weaseling out of a testable definition and thereby preserving means of deception.

  • Individualism Is a “weasel Word”

    Sovereignty can be tested by violations of interests that we categorically refer to as Property in Toto. A man is sovereign or he is not. He can demonstrate reciprocity in sovereignty or the cannot. Individualism, like non aggression, is just a weasel word for not defining the scope of interests against which one cannot impose costs, and the institutional means by which such a condition is created and preserved, against competition from those with different intentions. Sovereignty is an empirically testable definition. Individualism is just a means of weaseling out of a testable definition and thereby preserving means of deception.

  • by Vincent Deschenes 1. Globalism: Denies the importance and legitimacy of Natio

    by Vincent Deschenes 1. Globalism: Denies the importance and legitimacy of Nations. Lolbertarianism: Denies the importance and legitimacy of nations. 2. Globalism: Open borders and mass immigration. Lolbertarianism: Open borders and mass immigration. 3. Globalism: Race is a social construct, the mere thought that races may exhibit slight biological differences is irredeemably racist. Lolbertarianism: Race is a social construct, the mere thought that races may exhibit slight biological differences is irredeemably racist. 4. Globalism: Multiculturalism, multi-racialism is strength. Lolbertarianism: Multiculturalism/multi-racialism is strength. Conclusion. Radical individualism may serve to further the advancement of globalism, it is controlled opposition. This is not an issue where a middle ground exists, either you’re opposed to Globalism or you’re not, either you don’t recognize the importance of nations or you do, either you wish to preserve nations or you don’t.

  • by Vincent Deschenes 1. Globalism: Denies the importance and legitimacy of Natio

    by Vincent Deschenes 1. Globalism: Denies the importance and legitimacy of Nations. Lolbertarianism: Denies the importance and legitimacy of nations. 2. Globalism: Open borders and mass immigration. Lolbertarianism: Open borders and mass immigration. 3. Globalism: Race is a social construct, the mere thought that races may exhibit slight biological differences is irredeemably racist. Lolbertarianism: Race is a social construct, the mere thought that races may exhibit slight biological differences is irredeemably racist. 4. Globalism: Multiculturalism, multi-racialism is strength. Lolbertarianism: Multiculturalism/multi-racialism is strength. Conclusion. Radical individualism may serve to further the advancement of globalism, it is controlled opposition. This is not an issue where a middle ground exists, either you’re opposed to Globalism or you’re not, either you don’t recognize the importance of nations or you do, either you wish to preserve nations or you don’t.