Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Four Africas

    FOUR AFRICAS If you look at Africa, North Africa developed rapidly under the Egyptians and Phoenicians, and only failed under islam. If you look at west africa, it sure looks like civilization should have taken off there, and the only thing I can see so far is (a) limited productivity of the territory meaning high cost of administration, (b) lack of eurasian or south american domesticated animals and vegetables, (c) painful disease gradients, and (d) isolation from trade once they reached sufficient scale, that they needed eurasian technology from others to continue scale. I’m just too ignorant still to understand. But it looks like a ‘Jared Diamond’ argument there. If you look at east africa, the two red sea routes (the isthmus across the south, and the river at the north) this territory was ‘hostile and unexplored’ and the trade route poorly usd until roman times (and was prime booty for islam). If you look at the territory between east and west africa, and between east africa and the highlands of southern africa, these regions are just too costly to transit for trade – especially in comparison to the mediterranean. I mean, geography is just … damn, africa is HUGE. The route across the isthmus like that between alaska and siberia was walkable or at least open to simple migration out of africa. The semitic peoples (i think) developed out of west eurasians on this land bridge route, then moved north, and once the semitic peoples developed they migrated southward and established kingdoms in the horn of africa. (the one that is now slowly splitting off of africa to form a large island as big as the british isles.) Even once horses were introduced, the climate is not beneficial for raising horses (especially compared to mongolia or the european plain). Trade tended to round the west coast rather than cross the center. Meaning that trade with west africa was prohibitively distant until the age of sail. —“cavalryman in West Africa ultimately lost out to the musketeer. Firearms were not only, eventually, a more efficient arm of warfare: they were also very much cheaper than horses. The same happened in Asia, of course: but perhaps not quite so inevitability. For a very long time firearms were inferior both in range and rate of fire to the Turkish compound bow. The Tatars of the Crimea were still, in the seventeenth century, raiding effectively in Eastern Europe against the opposition of field artillery and troops armed with muskets. And western writers on Ottoman expansion have tended to lay too much emphasis on the Janissaries – infantry musketeers – as against the Ottomans’ more significant light cavalry. But gunpowder had nevertheless sounded the death-knell of the mounted archer’s invincibility. In West Africa the heyday of the cavalryman lasted for a much shorter period than in Asia – not more than five centuries”— Still have to study each of these west african empires, because it sure looks like there was sufficient mass there.
    Apr 04, 2018 6:30pm

  • International Justice Systems…

    So let me get this straight: you get beaten to near death with sticks for stealing in india, and completely to death boards and bats in Brazil, and the africans one up the rest of the world by lighting them on fire? And the chinese rip close off adulterers,while the rest of south america does a mag dump on you for screwing their daughters? The arab world just makes up random excuses to line people up and shoot them in the head – for entertainment purposes – and then compensates for it by accidentally shooting people in the head at wedding celebrations? (i dig the whole light em on fire thing. Wow.) That’s what I’m learning about international justice systems…

  • International Justice Systems…

    So let me get this straight: you get beaten to near death with sticks for stealing in india, and completely to death boards and bats in Brazil, and the africans one up the rest of the world by lighting them on fire? And the chinese rip close off adulterers,while the rest of south america does a mag dump on you for screwing their daughters? The arab world just makes up random excuses to line people up and shoot them in the head – for entertainment purposes – and then compensates for it by accidentally shooting people in the head at wedding celebrations? (i dig the whole light em on fire thing. Wow.) That’s what I’m learning about international justice systems…

  • Ancient Family History Is Different from What Was Handed Down

    . (family history nonsense) Growing up we were told that our most distant ancestor had some crime or other that he apologized for, and gave money to Mont St Michelle. That wasn’t true at all. He merely gave witness to the legal proceedings. Fun with the “telephone game” of family history. The other was that one gave all his possession to a monastery. But of course, that’s what you did when you joined one. (Not that a am really sure of anything prior to 1350. Nor is anyone else for that matter. I’m still trying to get hold of something I can trust between the time the family disappears from the south of england, and … it sure looks like, moves north and then west. Always have property. Seems they were always literate. My ‘intuition’ tells me there was a little fortune seeking military nonsense going on in scotland and that this maybe didn’t turn out as they’d hoped, and resettled in the west.) This is the other axis I want to check. But I don’t think we can distinguish that clearly yet: THE HUSMERAE The Husmerae were a tribe or clan in Anglo-Saxon England, possibly forming an early settlement of the Hwicce subkingdom. The Husmerae settled on the banks of the River Stour, prior to 736.[1] They probably took their name from Usmere, a pool on the boundary of Wolverley whose name in preserved in Ismere House in Churchill, Worcestershire.[2] The tribe is mentioned only in the Ismere Diploma of 734, and subsequent charters relating to the same property until 964, when Usmere occurs on the boundary of Cookley in Wolverley.[1][3] This charter was for the foundation of a coenubium (minster). That minster was probably at Kidderminster, quite probably occupying the site of the parish church there.[4] Although the Husmerae may have been of West Saxon origin, settling into the area some time after the West Saxon defeat of the Britons at the Battle of Dyrham in 577, the Ismere Diploma suggests that Husmerae is the ancient name for area, although uncertainty over its provenance leave the origins of the name open to question [5] —- HWICCE Hwicce (Old English: /ʍi:kt͡ʃe/ [hw-eek-chay]) was a tribal kingdom in Anglo-Saxon England. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the kingdom was established in 577, after the Battle of Deorham. After 628, the kingdom became a client or sub-kingdom of Mercia as a result of the Battle of Cirencester. The Tribal Hidage assessed Hwicce at 7000 hides, which would give it a similar sized economy to the kingdoms of Essex and Sussex. The exact boundaries of the kingdom remain uncertain, though it is likely that they coincided with those of the old Diocese of Worcester, founded in 679–80, the early bishops of which bore the title Episcopus Hwicciorum. The kingdom would therefore have included Worcestershire except the northwestern tip, Gloucestershire except the Forest of Dean, the southwestern half of Warwickshire, the neighbourhood of Bath north of the Avon, plus small parts of Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and north-west Wiltshire.[1][2] —- ABBEY OF MONT ST. MICHEL, FOR BENEDICTINE MONKS, IN THE DIOCESE OF AVRANCHES. [Original Charters in Archives of La Manche, (fn. 1) and in private hands; Cartulary in Public Library of Avranches, No. 210. (fn. 2) ] [? 1085–1087.] (Original in archives. (fn. 46) Trans. Vol. II. fo. 247.) 718. Charter of William (Wilgelmus) son of Hugh de Silliaco. For forgiveness of all the misdeeds of himself, his predecessors and his successors, he grants in the time of William (Wilgelmi) king of the English, of Hoel bishop of Le Mans, of Ubert the vicomte and of Geoffrey de Mayenne (Mahena), to the monks of St. Michael, for the brotherhood and the prayers of St. Michael and the monks his servants, all the dues on his land of the monks’ demesne [to be enjoyed] as their own in peace, Ralf the monk and Andrew receiving them, on behalf of that house with a green branch of thorn (cum spine viridi ramo), Oldeburga (sic) allowing the gift on behalf of (loco) his other sons and accepting the benefits [of brotherhood] for them. Testimonio Willelmi de Vernico, et Amelini forestarii, et Berardi de Silliaco; Warini filii Rogeri; Radulfi de Dolieta; Erberti de Orca; Thebaldi capellani; Droconi[s] de Sancto Christoforo; Fulconi[s] Droardi, etc.
    Apr 02, 2018 9:50pm

  • Ancient Family History Is Different from What Was Handed Down

    . (family history nonsense) Growing up we were told that our most distant ancestor had some crime or other that he apologized for, and gave money to Mont St Michelle. That wasn’t true at all. He merely gave witness to the legal proceedings. Fun with the “telephone game” of family history. The other was that one gave all his possession to a monastery. But of course, that’s what you did when you joined one. (Not that a am really sure of anything prior to 1350. Nor is anyone else for that matter. I’m still trying to get hold of something I can trust between the time the family disappears from the south of england, and … it sure looks like, moves north and then west. Always have property. Seems they were always literate. My ‘intuition’ tells me there was a little fortune seeking military nonsense going on in scotland and that this maybe didn’t turn out as they’d hoped, and resettled in the west.) This is the other axis I want to check. But I don’t think we can distinguish that clearly yet: THE HUSMERAE The Husmerae were a tribe or clan in Anglo-Saxon England, possibly forming an early settlement of the Hwicce subkingdom. The Husmerae settled on the banks of the River Stour, prior to 736.[1] They probably took their name from Usmere, a pool on the boundary of Wolverley whose name in preserved in Ismere House in Churchill, Worcestershire.[2] The tribe is mentioned only in the Ismere Diploma of 734, and subsequent charters relating to the same property until 964, when Usmere occurs on the boundary of Cookley in Wolverley.[1][3] This charter was for the foundation of a coenubium (minster). That minster was probably at Kidderminster, quite probably occupying the site of the parish church there.[4] Although the Husmerae may have been of West Saxon origin, settling into the area some time after the West Saxon defeat of the Britons at the Battle of Dyrham in 577, the Ismere Diploma suggests that Husmerae is the ancient name for area, although uncertainty over its provenance leave the origins of the name open to question [5] —- HWICCE Hwicce (Old English: /ʍi:kt͡ʃe/ [hw-eek-chay]) was a tribal kingdom in Anglo-Saxon England. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the kingdom was established in 577, after the Battle of Deorham. After 628, the kingdom became a client or sub-kingdom of Mercia as a result of the Battle of Cirencester. The Tribal Hidage assessed Hwicce at 7000 hides, which would give it a similar sized economy to the kingdoms of Essex and Sussex. The exact boundaries of the kingdom remain uncertain, though it is likely that they coincided with those of the old Diocese of Worcester, founded in 679–80, the early bishops of which bore the title Episcopus Hwicciorum. The kingdom would therefore have included Worcestershire except the northwestern tip, Gloucestershire except the Forest of Dean, the southwestern half of Warwickshire, the neighbourhood of Bath north of the Avon, plus small parts of Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and north-west Wiltshire.[1][2] —- ABBEY OF MONT ST. MICHEL, FOR BENEDICTINE MONKS, IN THE DIOCESE OF AVRANCHES. [Original Charters in Archives of La Manche, (fn. 1) and in private hands; Cartulary in Public Library of Avranches, No. 210. (fn. 2) ] [? 1085–1087.] (Original in archives. (fn. 46) Trans. Vol. II. fo. 247.) 718. Charter of William (Wilgelmus) son of Hugh de Silliaco. For forgiveness of all the misdeeds of himself, his predecessors and his successors, he grants in the time of William (Wilgelmi) king of the English, of Hoel bishop of Le Mans, of Ubert the vicomte and of Geoffrey de Mayenne (Mahena), to the monks of St. Michael, for the brotherhood and the prayers of St. Michael and the monks his servants, all the dues on his land of the monks’ demesne [to be enjoyed] as their own in peace, Ralf the monk and Andrew receiving them, on behalf of that house with a green branch of thorn (cum spine viridi ramo), Oldeburga (sic) allowing the gift on behalf of (loco) his other sons and accepting the benefits [of brotherhood] for them. Testimonio Willelmi de Vernico, et Amelini forestarii, et Berardi de Silliaco; Warini filii Rogeri; Radulfi de Dolieta; Erberti de Orca; Thebaldi capellani; Droconi[s] de Sancto Christoforo; Fulconi[s] Droardi, etc.
    Apr 02, 2018 9:50pm

  • Solutions to Excess Males

    The reason the religions all favored monogamy is for the simple reason that while we require a lot of males to fend off other males, (armies) we do not need many domestic males. The fact that the rather obvious solution to this problem is to create armies that produce not only war but commons, and let ‘prostitution’ run wild, and meanwhile the upper 30% of males ‘spread it around’, while we redistribute gains to women who produce offspring – which is how we evolved – is somehow lost on us.

  • Solutions to Excess Males

    The reason the religions all favored monogamy is for the simple reason that while we require a lot of males to fend off other males, (armies) we do not need many domestic males. The fact that the rather obvious solution to this problem is to create armies that produce not only war but commons, and let ‘prostitution’ run wild, and meanwhile the upper 30% of males ‘spread it around’, while we redistribute gains to women who produce offspring – which is how we evolved – is somehow lost on us.

  • The Case for Compensatory Eugenics

    Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.
    Apr 03, 2018 10:32am

  • The Case for Compensatory Eugenics

    Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.
    Apr 03, 2018 10:32am

  • Why Is It that We Persist This Middle Eastern Savagery

    You know, the fact that the modern church (a) tolerated pedophiles and worse, (b) refused to rectify(sic) the situation, (c) has not reformed to allow married priests, and (d) has now directly turned against european civilization – doubling down on supernaturalism and (e) selected an anti-european pope, means it is time to end that church and bring about another. Why is it that we persist this middle eastern savagery rather than transcend the abrahamic dark ages, and emerge a people of natural law, nature, and the transcendence of man?