Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • No. We Make No Apologies For Disruption Of Your Status Quo’s

    —‘talents’ being the will to take others property, land and commit genocide?”— Kool Akiem (Regarding: “europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy and no one else did.”) REPLY Talents meaning personality traits including intelligence, and in particular verbal intelligence, but even more so on general pedomorphcih and neotonic prolongation of traits. I am terribly proud of dragging humanity out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, hard labor, child mortality, early death, suffering and disease even if they resisted us all the way, and succeeded in defeating us by the great lies of the Abrahamic Dark Age. And even if they are resisting us today in the beginning of the second abrahamic (pseudoscientific) dark age by exactly the same means. I am terribly proud of replacing the undomesticated animal, and domesticating the human animals that remain. You are not kin, friend, productive cooperator, political cooperator, or military cooperator and I would prefer to continue speciating and leaving peoples like you behind as we have done so for millennia. If we cannot cooperate on ends, that is fine, as long as we can cooperate on means. If we cannot cooperate on means, then you are either unimportant, a competitor for resources, a parasite, or an enemy. There is no family of man except in the mind of parasites. I mean, the greatest murderers in the world are the islamists (500M dead, and the Socialist/Communists 100M dead) yet we have dragged mankind out of ignorance in the ancient and modern world, with the only interruption being the abrahamic dark age imposed upon europe by eastern emperors followed by muslim pirates and raiders. I mean, we destroyed south american civilizations nearly by accident. In the modern world we ahve tried desperately to turn primitive semi domesticated animals into fully human participants in the market order. And had the british not fallen to immoral influence under Disraeli, they might have completed the task by administration rather than leaving it to americans to force others to do at the point of high powered weapons. The muslims destroyed every major civilization in the ancient world, and the soviets cost eastern europe two hundred years. The east and southeast asians killed so many of their own people that only the muslims and the great plagues compare. Your anxiety is that you have very low sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value, and as such you rail against a world you are unfit for. It is understandable that you should rail against a sexual,s ocial, economic, political and military order that forces you to confront your low market value to others. However, It is in the interests of all mankind past and present that if you lack sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value, that you disappear from the gene pool so that you do not force others to pay the cost of your inadequacy. We all fear being left behind. I wish I was tall enough to play basketball – I would have greater access to better women. I wish often that I had ordinary intelligence rather than the extremes – it would make life more pleasant. I wish that I had been born in a prior generation of my family when it was much wealthier than others, rather than in a generation equal to others. But I compete. I win. I make a place where I can create value. I don’t rail against the world to justify my lack of ability, character, and fortitude. 　 Cheers

  • “So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the

    –“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’. Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible. Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them. As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did. All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating. That’s just how it is. So, no. All peoples can transcend.

  • “So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility the

    –“So you’re a supremacist”– (a naive young fool) I work on the compatibility thesis, and that it’s the distribution of talents in cooperation in a group, not individuals that produce ‘goods’. Men and women are compatible. The classes, except at the bottom, are compatible. The peoples of the world, if they internalize their own costs of domestication, are compatible. Only europeans could invent what we have invented, but any people willing to adopt those technologies (including eugenic mating practices) can make use of them. As for ‘superiority’, europeans have inherited a genetic advantage in the distribution of their talents, just as have the ashkenazi and the east asians. The difference is only that we developed truth independent of its effect on the dominance hierarchy, and a civilization of markets in everything because of it – and no one else did. All human peoples can transcend the animal. But it comes at the cost of continuous reduction of the underclasses through constraints on reproduction and mating. That’s just how it is. So, no. All peoples can transcend.

  • The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in

    The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’ “poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”). In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.” And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little. The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced. Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do). But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).

  • The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in

    The question is, how does one know one is poor except by relative differences in inventory and consumption? Poverty is the natural condition of man. Property and mutual insurance of it, lift us out of poverty. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT ‘POOR’ “poor’ evolved from pre-Latin *pau-paros “producing little; getting little,” a compound from the roots of paucus “little” (from PIE root *pau- (1) “few, little”) and parare “to produce, bring forth” (from PIE root *pere-(1) “to produce, procure”). In other words, the original meaning of poor in proto indo european (well before the invention of money or money substitutes) was ‘one who produces very little.” And this remains the cause of poverty. One who produces very little and therefore consumes very little. The evolution of money requires the production of surpluses that cannot be consumed and can (must) be traded across production groups in order to obtain that which is not self produced. Barter-price (cattle, chicken, lambs, etc) can function for certain transactions, if those items can serve as a store value (they do). But money must be portable, have a high weight/volume to value (time savings), be unitary measure and divisible, and universally (within the trade network) liquid (in demand).

  • Politics Is Quite Simple Really – Truth Is Simple, Lies Are Complicated.

    Politics is just a proxy for war. Markets are superior to political orders because they calculate maximum mutual by reciprocity. The problem as in all things, is producing limits. Capitalism and socialism are both unlimited by reciprocity. Only rule of law of reciprocity produces markets that discover the balance between private and commons. We fuss and fume over capitalism vs socialism, or authoritarianism vs anarchism, but the only underlying difference is rule of law and reciprocity vs rule by discretion and reciprocity. *For, the only purpose of discretion is, and can be, to violate reciprocity*. And the problem heretofore has been the means of limiting markets by the measurement of capital in toto that changes. Why? Because humans evolved in a world that easily equilibrated their consumptions within the band or tribe – because they could only externalize costs onto the natural world. But at current scale, when we cooperate via host of proxies, we can and do largely externalize against others whether kin, polity, nation, competitors, or man. And man retaliates differently and more immediately from nature against those impositions. So politics is quite simple under meritocracy, and politics is quite complicated under irreciprocity. Under rule of law of reciprocity, markets that result from that rule of law (both private and common) are quite transparent, simple and explicable. Under the irreciprocity of politics and rule by discretion, the results of that discretion (and deception) is not transparent, complicated, and largely inexplicable. The principle problem in achieving reciprocity and transparency is the percentage of your population that can survive competition in the market. If a group cannot survive competition in the market because it has too many members that cannot compete in the market, then political discretion, corruption, and irreciprocity evolve out of the necessity of survival. Ergo the only possible means of producing reciprocity is to prevent the expansion and produce the contraction of those individuals that cannot compete in the market given present technology, resources, and competitors. And in doing so prevent the emergence of a body of elites that employ discretionary rule. This brief passage explains almost all of politics. The british system and the current scandinavian was possible because of such aggressive culling of the underclasses, and the economic dependence upon the militia for both offense and defense. The british model preserved tripartism (clergy, nobility, businessmen-farmers ), and thereby produced a government that funcitoned as a market between the ‘able’ classes (aristocracy, nobility, managers of production, and the church (women and underclasses).) The enlightenment seizure and creating of a monopoly rather than preservation of the market between the classes was made possible by the disproportionate returns on the empirical revolution’s increases in productivity. Yet that marginal increase in productivity which allowed for great concentration of wealth has increasingly dissipated due to the anglo-american and less-so european distribution and enforcement of consumer capitalism (markets). Yet most societies have returned to monopoly government rather than market, because of asymmetries in populations and the utility of concentrating capital in the state as a means of projecting military power by which market advantages are gained. This is all there is to politics. There is very little other to be understood. Everything else is just negotiating position using some sort of fiction.

  • Politics Is Quite Simple Really – Truth Is Simple, Lies Are Complicated.

    Politics is just a proxy for war. Markets are superior to political orders because they calculate maximum mutual by reciprocity. The problem as in all things, is producing limits. Capitalism and socialism are both unlimited by reciprocity. Only rule of law of reciprocity produces markets that discover the balance between private and commons. We fuss and fume over capitalism vs socialism, or authoritarianism vs anarchism, but the only underlying difference is rule of law and reciprocity vs rule by discretion and reciprocity. *For, the only purpose of discretion is, and can be, to violate reciprocity*. And the problem heretofore has been the means of limiting markets by the measurement of capital in toto that changes. Why? Because humans evolved in a world that easily equilibrated their consumptions within the band or tribe – because they could only externalize costs onto the natural world. But at current scale, when we cooperate via host of proxies, we can and do largely externalize against others whether kin, polity, nation, competitors, or man. And man retaliates differently and more immediately from nature against those impositions. So politics is quite simple under meritocracy, and politics is quite complicated under irreciprocity. Under rule of law of reciprocity, markets that result from that rule of law (both private and common) are quite transparent, simple and explicable. Under the irreciprocity of politics and rule by discretion, the results of that discretion (and deception) is not transparent, complicated, and largely inexplicable. The principle problem in achieving reciprocity and transparency is the percentage of your population that can survive competition in the market. If a group cannot survive competition in the market because it has too many members that cannot compete in the market, then political discretion, corruption, and irreciprocity evolve out of the necessity of survival. Ergo the only possible means of producing reciprocity is to prevent the expansion and produce the contraction of those individuals that cannot compete in the market given present technology, resources, and competitors. And in doing so prevent the emergence of a body of elites that employ discretionary rule. This brief passage explains almost all of politics. The british system and the current scandinavian was possible because of such aggressive culling of the underclasses, and the economic dependence upon the militia for both offense and defense. The british model preserved tripartism (clergy, nobility, businessmen-farmers ), and thereby produced a government that funcitoned as a market between the ‘able’ classes (aristocracy, nobility, managers of production, and the church (women and underclasses).) The enlightenment seizure and creating of a monopoly rather than preservation of the market between the classes was made possible by the disproportionate returns on the empirical revolution’s increases in productivity. Yet that marginal increase in productivity which allowed for great concentration of wealth has increasingly dissipated due to the anglo-american and less-so european distribution and enforcement of consumer capitalism (markets). Yet most societies have returned to monopoly government rather than market, because of asymmetries in populations and the utility of concentrating capital in the state as a means of projecting military power by which market advantages are gained. This is all there is to politics. There is very little other to be understood. Everything else is just negotiating position using some sort of fiction.

  • Did You Ever Break A Rule In Your Whole Life?

    —”Did you Ever Break A Rule In Your Life?”—

    As often as possible.

    Rules are necessary for those who need them. Why?

    1 – imitation ethics > 2 – rule ethics > 3 – outcome ethics.

    Some of us must imitate becase we have no understanding.
    Some of us follow rules because that is our understanding.
    Some of us act to produce outcomes, becasue that is our understanding.

    Some of us don’t imitate, don’t follow rules, but understand first principles and the outcomes that they produce.

    There is only one rule: “Non imposition”

    – impose no cost upon others by display, sound, word, or deed.
    – impose no use, wear, or cost upon that which is not entirely yours by voluntary exchange.
    – do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.
    – do unto others only what they wish.
    These are the only rules one need follow, because there is only one moral rule: non imposition.

    Otherwise

    There are no good rules that need saying.
    There are many bad rules that are said.

    There are many fools that need follow rules whether good or bad.

    For the same reason that we do not like bulls in china shops.

    They break things.

    https://www.quora.com/Did-you-ever-break-a-rule-in-your-whole-life

  • Did You Ever Break A Rule In Your Whole Life?

    —”Did you Ever Break A Rule In Your Life?”—

    As often as possible.

    Rules are necessary for those who need them. Why?

    1 – imitation ethics > 2 – rule ethics > 3 – outcome ethics.

    Some of us must imitate becase we have no understanding.
    Some of us follow rules because that is our understanding.
    Some of us act to produce outcomes, becasue that is our understanding.

    Some of us don’t imitate, don’t follow rules, but understand first principles and the outcomes that they produce.

    There is only one rule: “Non imposition”

    – impose no cost upon others by display, sound, word, or deed.
    – impose no use, wear, or cost upon that which is not entirely yours by voluntary exchange.
    – do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.
    – do unto others only what they wish.
    These are the only rules one need follow, because there is only one moral rule: non imposition.

    Otherwise

    There are no good rules that need saying.
    There are many bad rules that are said.

    There are many fools that need follow rules whether good or bad.

    For the same reason that we do not like bulls in china shops.

    They break things.

    https://www.quora.com/Did-you-ever-break-a-rule-in-your-whole-life

  • (Video making the rounds. Guy makes selfie doing some girl. Cut to her father ma

    (Video making the rounds. Guy makes selfie doing some girl. Cut to her father making vido of two shotgun rounds to the head followed by a mag-dump with a pistol. I mean, the shotgun wedding, shotgun murder thing seems to work just fine. I was surprised he didn’t douse him with gasoline and light him on fire.)