Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Is The ACLU Good For America?

    I’m going to criticize then compliment the ACLU.

    CRITICISM – THE SINGULAR IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL LAW (RECIPROCITY)
    Unfortunately while the ACLU has defended those who need defending, they have also been instrumental in pursuing a set of cases with the objective of using the courts to circumvent the process by which our constitution was designed to be changed.

    And they have been the principle prosecutors of the intentional destruction of the limits to expression that prohibit that behavior that westerners had developed carefully over centuries: the treatment of all common spaces as sacred – as extensions of the interiors of their church.

    Now expressed in scientific rather than normative terms, this means that the west has aggressively prosecuted the underclass for at least one thousand years, by enforcing strict limits on “display, word, and deed” that would normalize behavior that would put the young, the foolish, and those of less able families at risk of imitating. The result was the west’s High Trust Society that no civilization has been in any way close to achieving.

    HISTORICAL CONTEXT
    Lost to common people’s history was that the founders were conducting an experiment in ‘the third way’ which was rule by the middle class (or at least upper middle class) and business people, in a world run traditionally by church, state, or a competition between the two. They ran this experiment by encoding individual sovereignty (Natural Law) and rule of law (as opposed to rule by human discretion) into the constitution with strict processes to follow – unfortunately they did not yet understand strict construction or their experiment would have been even more successful.

    The original Mission of the ACLU was decidedly Communist and Socialist (see their platform changes over time) and this strategy a means by which to undermine Anglo (western) civilization by taking advantage of a very tolerant legal and cultural system – the first system of its kind, in a territory never ruled by the Aristocracy or Church.

    So the ACLU’s mission has produced some goods, but equal if not offsetting bads, not the least of which was the destruction of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity (natural law) by continuing the undermining of that constitution begun during the Civil War, the Reconstruction, under FDR, and under Johnson’s Great Society movement (trying to imitate the Soviets.)

    The constitution failed to include such provisions for the defense of high trust norms, in no small part because the discussion at the time assumed that the church would play the civic and familial role and the domain of the government was largely defense and commerce.

    In addition, while all of us have universal standing in matters private, we do not have univeresal standing in matters public – we deliver our agency to proxies we call politicians. We do this because at the time of the constitution, (a) the population capable of such activity was limited, and (b) the time delay of communication was prohibitive.

    And the constitution did not provide a mechanism for suing the state, the bureaucracy, or members of the state, nor taking up matters of norms at the federal level, in part because such activities were not the purview of the federal government, even the state governments, but the church enforced by polity and local government.

    WHAT WENT RIGHT

    So, while the ACLU has undermined those high trust norms, and contributed significantly to the present and future conflict:

    (a) it is a civic organization not a state organization and therefore property constructed under natural, reciprocal, anglo saxon (meaning sovereign and contractualist), common law. In other words, it is constructed as the founders would have all civic institutions constructed – continuing long standing tradition.

    (b) it was able to fulfill some of the functions that the church was unable to post the industrial and second scientific revolutions (post 1870) by providing a civic institution that levied for the underclasses the way the church had done throughout western history.

    (c) by centralizing the government during the civil war, developing fiat money and the federal reserve, followed by the income tax, and vastly expanding the federal government influence, money that had (in europe) been in civic organizations and church assets was available for consumption by democratic politics and the court. This increased the power of the federal government and the need for an institutional means by which to limit abuses by a government with a concentration of wealth that was all but limitless – at least after the world wars.

    In my reading of history the democratic socialist movement in general can be seen as the slow replacement of the prior theological church with secular (if frequently pseudoscientific) institutions and prose.

    WHAT WENT WRONG

    The principle problem with their movement was the search for monopoly power and single-house government, by underclass rule, rather than adding a house for the underclass through which their interests could be negotiated with the other classes now that the church no longer existed as a semi-governing body responsible for norm and family.

    In other words, MONOPOLY IS ALWAYS BAD and the world communist and socialist movements attempted (as did the church but the church also failed) attempted to achieve authoritarian monopoly, without understanding that the Tripartism of Church, Burger, and State functioned as a balance of power between the classes from the end of the empire to the first world war.

    The court is a poor proxy for markets, and had we created additional houses for the classes rather than (i) the anglo enlightenment fantasy of an aristocracy of all, or (ii) the French/Russian/Jewish fantasy of underclass authoritarianism. Or the (iii) German fantasy of an army of civic duty replacing the church with secular rationalist prose (The Germans had the least inaccurate vision of man.)

    WE LEARN FROM RETROSPECT

    Small things in large numbers have vast consequences and if I am right then we will have another civil war within our lifetimes.

    Hopefully our next constitutions will be written in strictly constructed law from the first law of reciprocity, but we will have many small states the normative, formal, economic, and military organizations of which are customized for the reproductive interest of the polities.

    The only value of political scale is debt and the war made possible by access to that debt. We are seeing worldwide the slow collapse of nations that used credit not to transform behaviors to those of the high trust middle class, but to subsidize behaviors of the political, laboring, and underclasses.

    The continental government has outlived its usefulness as an institution that controls the sale and distribution of a conquered continent to immigrants. The american economy is and always has been housing and the goods to fill those houses. And that’s all there is and ever was. We congratulates ourselves on many aspects of our society. But selling off a continent conquered by advanced weaponry, by using an action system funded by shares in the future is simply the most profitable enterprise humans have ever invented.

    But like the Athenian Silver Mine, the veins eventually run dry, resulting in Brazil, India, and the Levant.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-ACLU-good-for-America

  • “We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intel

    —“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intelligence and have calculated from what we know that there are at least 100 SDs up for grabs. … people with IQs of 1,600 are yet to come probably before AI.”—

  • “We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intel

    —“We have so far identified 162 gene variants that are correlated to higher intelligence and have calculated from what we know that there are at least 100 SDs up for grabs. … people with IQs of 1,600 are yet to come probably before AI.”—

  • —“Curt, Are Complex Ideas Inaccessible Or Does It Just Take Some People Longer?”—

    —“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”— While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses). As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet. In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things. I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own. The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will. My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media). This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense. Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be. -Cheers 😉

  • —“Curt, Are Complex Ideas Inaccessible Or Does It Just Take Some People Longer?”—

    —“CURT, ARE COMPLEX IDEAS INACCESSIBLE OR DOES IT JUST TAKE SOME PEOPLE LONGER?”— While it should take 110 IQ to pass university courses there are people with 100IQ that manage to do it. (not that they’re taking the hardest courses). As I understand it, it takes a lot longer to learn what exists, longer to learn what must be calculated by substitution, and the meaningful barrier is invention of what does not exist yet. In other words, to be very good at chess you have to play a lot, and learn a lot of increasingly complex patterns. To be very good at math you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. To be good a programming, you have to use it a great deal and be very good at increasingly complex patterns. The barrier for people is usually frustration and exhaustion in that learning to apply those patterns by intuition and permutation is actually beyond some people. You would be horrified below 95 at how hard it is for people to learn the most basic things. I find most interesting is those children who are mentally retarded by because of their desire for approval, they will work endlessly to learn some simple thing that they can accomplish on their own. The real problem we faces as a polity is the Dunning Kruger bias, which is that we tend to assume a little knowledge provides more understanding that it does. The example I understand best, is in the field I understand best, which is economics. In economics you can almost guarantee that the majority of economists will be wrong on any particular question of nuance. The reason being there are only four or five people who understand that question, and all of economics is counter-intuitive (which is why it’s so complicated). Yet all economists opine on some specialization that they are entirely ignorant of. This also mirrors the academic anchoring problem. In that, a survey of 1000 people on the street will yield better predictive results (of observable phenomenon) than the specialists will. My greatest frustration is the “Island 120” group, which is people able to graduate from non-STEM courses but not STEM courses, and virtue signal that they belong to the island 120’s group, but who vastly overestimate their understanding and vastly over express their confidence. The 120’s are the range where you know enough to be dangerous by convincing a large body of people you know enough. (the media). This behavior is equivalent to a cult where all members are convinced of their wisdom simply because they all believe the same nonsense. In my understanding of western civilization today, those people play a disproportionate role in information sharing – and most of what they think is nonsense. Reality is always quite simple, it’s just often less pleasant than we imagine it to be. -Cheers 😉

  • Could You Possibly Clarify Your Position on ‘Racism’?

    –“Hey Curt could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

    OK. Let’s try.

    —“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

    Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

    —“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

    Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

    —“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

    Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

    —“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

    I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other. Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically. If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands. The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people. So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

    –“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

    Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I don’t know how to answer that question. You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns. But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon. The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race. Thanks brother 😉

  • Could You Possibly Clarify Your Position on ‘Racism’?

    –“Hey Curt could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

    OK. Let’s try.

    —“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

    Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

    —“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

    Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

    —“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

    Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

    —“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

    I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other. Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically. If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands. The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people. So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

    –“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

    Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I don’t know how to answer that question. You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns. But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon. The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race. Thanks brother 😉

  • Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying

    Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read; “Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that. And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood. However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here. So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector? And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close? Thanks brother 😉

  • Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying

    Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read; “Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that. And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood. However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here. So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector? And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close? Thanks brother 😉

  • “Extinction level events are WAY too rare.”

    –“Extinction level events are WAY too rare.”–