Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Are Some Races More Kind, Gentle, Submissive, Beta, And Respectful Towards Their Elders Than Other Races?

    Well, yes, but it’s terribly impolitic to say so and terribly impolitic to ask. But, my job is answering the ‘impolitic and hard’ questions

    The correct question is, “Do some subraces tribes or clans demonstrate lower clannishness and higher extension of kingroup trust to non-kin?”

    1. The answer is yes. (See research on infants in cribs, and research on babies and very young on those they don’t know).
    2. The answer is yes and appears to be like most things, dependent upon ancestral environments. Homogeneity breeds tolerance and heterogeneity breeds clannishness. And we see this all over the world in every racial, subracial, tribal, clan, and class grouping.
    3. The answer is yes and it appears to be neoteny/pedomorphism, meaning the preservation of adolescent traits into adults.
    4. The answer is yes, and it appears that just like in other animals, the primary means of neoteny is reduction of the rate and depth of maturity.
    5. The answer is yes and it appears that the clannishness (Tolerance) of racial groups is measurable in the races by testosterone levels. (it also appears that most variation in homo-sapiens-sapiens is endocrine and therefore developmental. In this measurement east asians have the lowest testosterone, greatest neoteny, and as a consequence longest lives. Second to east asians are western europeans. Both of these groups could evolve without excessive competition from competing subracies and tribes. (Homogeneity is better in the long run in every sense.)
    6. Whites demonstrate the lowest clannishness (really). East asians and west asians (semites, and turkish) are the most clannish And everyone else is downhill from there. The difference is that east asians are not under threat from immigration and whites are.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-some-races-more-kind-gentle-submissive-beta-and-respectful-towards-their-elders-than-other-races

  • Why Do Politicians And The Very Rich Benefit The Most In A Socialist Society?

    It’s pretty simple: freedom from market competition.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-politicians-and-the-very-rich-benefit-the-most-in-a-socialist-society

  • Do Governments Create Wealth And Jobs For Its Citizens?

    THE COMPLETE AND CORRECT ANSWER.

    —-”Do governments create wealth and jobs for citizens?”—-

    First, let’s understand some terms to make sure we know what we’re talking about.

    SERIES: Defense > Rule > Government > Bureaucracy (monopoly) > Institutions (anonymous cooperation at scale) > Markets (speculation, investment, production, distribution, trade) > Norms (friction reduction) > Truth Telling (friction reduction) > Trust (risk taking) > Economic Velocity > Social Order.

    DEFINITIONS:

    – Defense (producing a territorial monopoly on the organization of decidability over uses of assets (property)),
    – Rule (dispute resolution, or resolution of differences),
    – Government (the production and management of commons), and;
    – Bureaucracy (a monopoly that manages daily operations) are four different things.

    Defense secures territory from appropriation by other large organizations capable of physical appropriation. Defense produces possibility of choice of SOCIAL ORDER (portfolio of property, norms, traditions, laws, legislation, regulation, institutions)

    Rule resolves disputes between people given the property allocations (in china, none, in russia, some, in europe some more, in america most.) In most cases norms are produced by the consequences of rulings by kings, judges, priests, and ‘authorities’. This is why laws vary: they must reflect the needs of the current stage of development of the people in the polity. Adjudications of differences produce LAW.

    Government produces commons through charging and maximizing fees (taxes) of members, and directing those fees to the production of commons, that they assume will produce multipliers (greater returns than private sector will) for the simple reason that some commons are extremely expensive. Legislation(contract) or Command(Dictate) produces LAW SUBSTITUTES we call Law but are not. This ‘conflation’ is endemic in discourse.

    Bureaucracy does labor that a market cannot yet perform through competition. In theory, a bureaucracy functions as portfolio (financial) manager of a function that the market cannot yet produce, or produce in sufficient quantity, or produce at a sufficient price. But like all monopolies they pursue self interest and always become corrupt. In a perfect world, states would start multiple competing bureaucracies like startups, and the best one or two would survive.

    WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO

    Governments create the possibility to organize increasingly complex markets with increasingly complex divisions of labor, with increasingly complex concentrations of capital, with increasingly complex abilities to adapt to shifts, changes, and shocks.

    Governments do this by prohibiting rent seeking, corruption, parasitism, theft, murder at the local level, and capturing the gains as taxation, which they then use to pay for the production of commons, that in turn produce multipliers (returns), that in turn increase standards of living – or governments fail to do so, by not suppressing corruption and not producing commons, and not producing multipliers.

    So governments create the possibilty of increasingly productive and rewarding polities. But it is the entire network of people from the monarchy (Rulers) to the peasantry (laborers) that create jobs through constant increases in the velocity of prodcutiion.

    Why? Because our only wealth is time. We are not wealthier than cave men. We simply make everything cheaper by taking less time with more hands in greater coordination to produce everything we desire for less and less of our time.

    Rules make a game. Governments make rules so that we can play economic games – and moreover that we cannot play anti-economic gains.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Do-governments-create-wealth-and-jobs-for-its-citizens

  • Are Some Races More Kind, Gentle, Submissive, Beta, And Respectful Towards Their Elders Than Other Races?

    Well, yes, but it’s terribly impolitic to say so and terribly impolitic to ask. But, my job is answering the ‘impolitic and hard’ questions

    The correct question is, “Do some subraces tribes or clans demonstrate lower clannishness and higher extension of kingroup trust to non-kin?”

    1. The answer is yes. (See research on infants in cribs, and research on babies and very young on those they don’t know).
    2. The answer is yes and appears to be like most things, dependent upon ancestral environments. Homogeneity breeds tolerance and heterogeneity breeds clannishness. And we see this all over the world in every racial, subracial, tribal, clan, and class grouping.
    3. The answer is yes and it appears to be neoteny/pedomorphism, meaning the preservation of adolescent traits into adults.
    4. The answer is yes, and it appears that just like in other animals, the primary means of neoteny is reduction of the rate and depth of maturity.
    5. The answer is yes and it appears that the clannishness (Tolerance) of racial groups is measurable in the races by testosterone levels. (it also appears that most variation in homo-sapiens-sapiens is endocrine and therefore developmental. In this measurement east asians have the lowest testosterone, greatest neoteny, and as a consequence longest lives. Second to east asians are western europeans. Both of these groups could evolve without excessive competition from competing subracies and tribes. (Homogeneity is better in the long run in every sense.)
    6. Whites demonstrate the lowest clannishness (really). East asians and west asians (semites, and turkish) are the most clannish And everyone else is downhill from there. The difference is that east asians are not under threat from immigration and whites are.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-some-races-more-kind-gentle-submissive-beta-and-respectful-towards-their-elders-than-other-races

  • Is It Possible A Racialist Really Knows Anything About Communism?

    AN UNPLEASANT BUT TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO A QUESTIONABLE QUESTION

    —-”Is it possible a racialist really knows anything about communism? “—

    I bet I know more about both subjects than anyone else you can find. And it’s not even that hard. Communism is a pseudoscientific restatement of Judaism. And it failed like Judaism failed – and Libertarianism, because neither reflects human behavior, and neither constructs commons. And commons are the means by which agrarians defeated the pastoralists in the ancient world. And commons are the means by which industrialists defeated agrarians in the modern world. Yet Judaism, libertarianism, seek to abandon all commons, and communism seeks to abandon all property. Meanwhile social democracy and classical liberalism seek only to compete over the production of dysgenic underclass or a eugenic middle class commons. Classical liberals understand agency and are willing to suppress underclass reproduction to achieve it. Social democrats understand lack of agency and are will to expand underclass reproduction to subsidize it.

    As for racial realism, people act racially in all circumstances IF THEY CAN AFFORD TO, or can use it to advance their political power or use it to retain their political power, because political power provides control over the production of commons that advance eugenic, dysgenic, and genetic warfare.

    We are no different from any other living organism. We compete on behalf of our genes. We just do a very good job of justifying our actions as moral, rather than warfare on behalf of our genes.

    We have done very poorly under a century of marxist pseudoscience: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard/Rand, Strauss, and the modern fictionalism (outright lying where pseudoscience failed) of it we call Postmodernism.

    No more lies. People demonstrate their actions in large numbers and they are measurable. That science says nothing but that we act in our rational genetic and self interest at all times, and all our speech is merely attempts to negotiation an advantage via deception (reciprocity) rather than engage in reciprocal trade – meritocracy.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-a-racialist-really-knows-anything-about-communism

  • Do Governments Create Wealth And Jobs For Its Citizens?

    THE COMPLETE AND CORRECT ANSWER.

    —-”Do governments create wealth and jobs for citizens?”—-

    First, let’s understand some terms to make sure we know what we’re talking about.

    SERIES: Defense > Rule > Government > Bureaucracy (monopoly) > Institutions (anonymous cooperation at scale) > Markets (speculation, investment, production, distribution, trade) > Norms (friction reduction) > Truth Telling (friction reduction) > Trust (risk taking) > Economic Velocity > Social Order.

    DEFINITIONS:

    – Defense (producing a territorial monopoly on the organization of decidability over uses of assets (property)),
    – Rule (dispute resolution, or resolution of differences),
    – Government (the production and management of commons), and;
    – Bureaucracy (a monopoly that manages daily operations) are four different things.

    Defense secures territory from appropriation by other large organizations capable of physical appropriation. Defense produces possibility of choice of SOCIAL ORDER (portfolio of property, norms, traditions, laws, legislation, regulation, institutions)

    Rule resolves disputes between people given the property allocations (in china, none, in russia, some, in europe some more, in america most.) In most cases norms are produced by the consequences of rulings by kings, judges, priests, and ‘authorities’. This is why laws vary: they must reflect the needs of the current stage of development of the people in the polity. Adjudications of differences produce LAW.

    Government produces commons through charging and maximizing fees (taxes) of members, and directing those fees to the production of commons, that they assume will produce multipliers (greater returns than private sector will) for the simple reason that some commons are extremely expensive. Legislation(contract) or Command(Dictate) produces LAW SUBSTITUTES we call Law but are not. This ‘conflation’ is endemic in discourse.

    Bureaucracy does labor that a market cannot yet perform through competition. In theory, a bureaucracy functions as portfolio (financial) manager of a function that the market cannot yet produce, or produce in sufficient quantity, or produce at a sufficient price. But like all monopolies they pursue self interest and always become corrupt. In a perfect world, states would start multiple competing bureaucracies like startups, and the best one or two would survive.

    WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO

    Governments create the possibility to organize increasingly complex markets with increasingly complex divisions of labor, with increasingly complex concentrations of capital, with increasingly complex abilities to adapt to shifts, changes, and shocks.

    Governments do this by prohibiting rent seeking, corruption, parasitism, theft, murder at the local level, and capturing the gains as taxation, which they then use to pay for the production of commons, that in turn produce multipliers (returns), that in turn increase standards of living – or governments fail to do so, by not suppressing corruption and not producing commons, and not producing multipliers.

    So governments create the possibilty of increasingly productive and rewarding polities. But it is the entire network of people from the monarchy (Rulers) to the peasantry (laborers) that create jobs through constant increases in the velocity of prodcutiion.

    Why? Because our only wealth is time. We are not wealthier than cave men. We simply make everything cheaper by taking less time with more hands in greater coordination to produce everything we desire for less and less of our time.

    Rules make a game. Governments make rules so that we can play economic games – and moreover that we cannot play anti-economic gains.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Do-governments-create-wealth-and-jobs-for-its-citizens

  • Is Warren Buffett Considered Republican Or Democrat? Why?

    THE COMPLETE ANSWER

    From the period between the civil war and the 1970’s, the south held animosity toward the republican party over Lincoln’s civil war. This led to the Democratic and Republican parties having both conservative and classical liberal members.

    Beginning between 76 and 80 this began to change because the democratic party had been captured more aggressively by the radical left and the feminists. Plus the left had used immigration starting in 1964 as a means of achieving the socialist revolution (tearing down the american experiment) through demographic warfare where they had failed by propaganda and pseudoscience (marxism, boazianism, freudianism, cantorian mathematics, and keynesian post marxist economics.)

    By and large the democratic effort has been effective for large business and finance. So many large business owners that serve the unproductive, laboring, working, and lower middle classes (what he invests in), are better off with policy that increases consumption.

    Whereas the republican (Aristocratic) is far more concerned with accumulating capital in Human (eugenic), behavioral (normative), institutional (rule of law by tort reciprocity – not rule BY legislation), and territorial than current consumption which consumes human capital (dysgenic, dysnormative, discretionary rather than reciprocal.)

    So between his AGE, his REGION, and his INTERESTS he votes for conservative democratic policies.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Warren-Buffett-considered-republican-or-democrat-Why

  • Is It Possible A Racialist Really Knows Anything About Communism?

    AN UNPLEASANT BUT TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO A QUESTIONABLE QUESTION

    —-”Is it possible a racialist really knows anything about communism? “—

    I bet I know more about both subjects than anyone else you can find. And it’s not even that hard. Communism is a pseudoscientific restatement of Judaism. And it failed like Judaism failed – and Libertarianism, because neither reflects human behavior, and neither constructs commons. And commons are the means by which agrarians defeated the pastoralists in the ancient world. And commons are the means by which industrialists defeated agrarians in the modern world. Yet Judaism, libertarianism, seek to abandon all commons, and communism seeks to abandon all property. Meanwhile social democracy and classical liberalism seek only to compete over the production of dysgenic underclass or a eugenic middle class commons. Classical liberals understand agency and are willing to suppress underclass reproduction to achieve it. Social democrats understand lack of agency and are will to expand underclass reproduction to subsidize it.

    As for racial realism, people act racially in all circumstances IF THEY CAN AFFORD TO, or can use it to advance their political power or use it to retain their political power, because political power provides control over the production of commons that advance eugenic, dysgenic, and genetic warfare.

    We are no different from any other living organism. We compete on behalf of our genes. We just do a very good job of justifying our actions as moral, rather than warfare on behalf of our genes.

    We have done very poorly under a century of marxist pseudoscience: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard/Rand, Strauss, and the modern fictionalism (outright lying where pseudoscience failed) of it we call Postmodernism.

    No more lies. People demonstrate their actions in large numbers and they are measurable. That science says nothing but that we act in our rational genetic and self interest at all times, and all our speech is merely attempts to negotiation an advantage via deception (reciprocity) rather than engage in reciprocal trade – meritocracy.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-a-racialist-really-knows-anything-about-communism

  • Should White People Pay Reparations For Their Collective, Colonial Pasts?

    UNPLEASANT TRUTHS IN A COMPLETE ANSWER
    I wonder, if white people ( Native Europeans) should collect taxes (Income) for their spread of Aristotelianism (Science), Natural Law under Reciprocity by Tort (Rule of Law), Accounting, Finance, Banking, Credit, and Interest, and The suppression of systemic corruption and in doing so dragging the whole of humanity kicking and screaming, in one revolt after another out of ignorance, superstition, hard physical labor, child labor, poverty, diseases, infanticide, and tyranny in less than 500 years. When beginning with the Abrahamic Dark Age (Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the world had made little caloric progress for almost two thousand years.)

    As far as I know, the only mistake white people have made is entering into a civil war with cousins in Germany, that was initiated by communists, starting in Russia, and spreading like islam today (westward) to the point of internal exhaustion, and therefore leaving the colonial problem incomplete, and therefore leaving so much of the world to struggle through the long process of corruption-suppression, rule of law development, and middle class development, while the only western peoples left standing (Americans, Australians, and Canadians) were geographically isolated from the less developed peoples – all of whom still struggle with corruption, truthfulness, rule of law, moral commerce, and dysgenic reproduction rates.

    WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE THE GREEKS AND ROMANS?
    WHAT DOES THE WORLD OWE NATIVE NORTHERN EUROPEANS (WHITES)?

    https://www.quora.com/Should-white-people-pay-reparations-for-their-collective-colonial-pasts

  • Is Warren Buffett Considered Republican Or Democrat? Why?

    THE COMPLETE ANSWER

    From the period between the civil war and the 1970’s, the south held animosity toward the republican party over Lincoln’s civil war. This led to the Democratic and Republican parties having both conservative and classical liberal members.

    Beginning between 76 and 80 this began to change because the democratic party had been captured more aggressively by the radical left and the feminists. Plus the left had used immigration starting in 1964 as a means of achieving the socialist revolution (tearing down the american experiment) through demographic warfare where they had failed by propaganda and pseudoscience (marxism, boazianism, freudianism, cantorian mathematics, and keynesian post marxist economics.)

    By and large the democratic effort has been effective for large business and finance. So many large business owners that serve the unproductive, laboring, working, and lower middle classes (what he invests in), are better off with policy that increases consumption.

    Whereas the republican (Aristocratic) is far more concerned with accumulating capital in Human (eugenic), behavioral (normative), institutional (rule of law by tort reciprocity – not rule BY legislation), and territorial than current consumption which consumes human capital (dysgenic, dysnormative, discretionary rather than reciprocal.)

    So between his AGE, his REGION, and his INTERESTS he votes for conservative democratic policies.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-Warren-Buffett-considered-republican-or-democrat-Why