Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Can Christianity Find Room for Intellectuals?

    [I] am fairly sure at this point that my concept of christianity differs little from say Jefferson’s except in the current scientific language I would use to express it. I practice an intellectual form of what we call christianity. It is demonstrably more pagan (the adoration of beauty, life, nature, the universe) in sentiment. It is not submissive but heroic. It is not the demand of a god, but an exchange with one. It is not mystical, but psychological and ethical, social and moral, political and economic. But it remains spiritual: a means of serving the pack by submission to, investment in, and sacrifice for, the pack (the tribe). I pray to and take advice from my god daily. Yet I see this god as a construction of man’s collective intuition, belief, and action, and the magic of religion a product of complex consilience. When I talk to my god he is not the semitic, Egyptian or babylonian terrorist, nor the fearsome Odin, nor the importune Zeus. He is the “all-father” for certain, but he is a distinctly christian father. A wise monarch, not a pious priest or selfish demon. Or better yet, he is the god I need him to be in order to do the work of my people – to raise my people from beast, to man, to gods all. To transform the entire universe to eden. Not to be cast out of paradise, but to construct it. So in this sense I see Polytheism as superior for an advanced civilization: to lionize our generals and saints, artists and poets, scientists and philosophers, manufacturers, merchants, and craftsmen. Because all of us require that our gods speak to us in our our language. But what are gods? Gods are the product of the human mind, just as are numbers and formulae, and they exist just as do numbers and formulae. They are what we wish to be if we were able, not what exists prior to us. Is it better to practice ancestor worship, disciplined ritual, as the Japanese and the stoics? It certainly appears so. Is it problematic to practice nature worship, seek advice of the gods? I do not see reason to. I can pray to the soul of Aristotle and if I understand him well enough hear his advice. Prayer is a means of circumventing your cognitive biases by a ritual act of submission to the pack. We hear the truth in prayer because we cannot lie to ourselves before an the knowing gods. If Christianity can find room for Intellectual Christians then why must it remain ‘truth’ rather than ‘myth and allegory’? Surely a tea ceremony, or the daily ritual of diary planning and writing are personal rituals rather than political. While prayer remains a mixture of personal and political. But all three quiet the mind so that we can listen to intuition gained from the study or experience of the ideas of great minds free of the multitude of biases that cloud our minds. Christianity can be expressed as an entirely rational system of thought. The premise is very simple: extend love of kin to non kin, and in doing so construct trust, and trust will produce prosperity. When paired with aristocracy and chivalry, this comprises the western character: heroism: the construction of personal excellence for the purpose of service to and advancement of the tribe. That we create god within us is more important for us than to explain the vicissitudes of nature – the universe is definitely hostile to human life. If I agree with the Catholic philosophers and Mormon practice, why is there no room for those men of science (truth) who need even FEWER biases and comforts in order to gain access to our intuitions? We need fewer excuses and incentives to think and act in Christian fashion, other than because of our station or disposition we understand that limiting consumption and contributing to the commons with our thoughts, feelings, and efforts is you see, I understand the cancer that is monopoly in any form, and the genius that is what we call balance of powers, but is better considered a division of labor. For in that division we produce multiple excellences, and through voluntary exchange we find the golden mean: the optimum path for many specialists rather than the only possible path for monopolists. The church is meaningless and rudderless without aristocracy. Aristocracy is meaningless without the church. Without the competition between Nobility, Priesthood and Burgher (bourgeoisie), two must be subject to the whim of one rather than each in constant excellence each conducting exchanges, and where those exchanges form an information system by which we investigate all three possible dimensions of social order as specialists, use each that we find advantageous, and continue to evolve. Meanwhile each keeps the other from abuses by a competition for power. This was our western secret and we have abandoned it for the folly of monopoly government by the lower classes in which we simply lie and cheat and manipulate outside of government and using government rather than between the great houses of state, church and industry. A man must be educated by the church and the aristocracy and industry. He can then specialize to suit his abilities: education and care-taking, invention and production, law and order. I do not see the value in the bible that I see in our great literature. I see value in a church, in a priesthood, in a mythos, and in rituals. I do not see the value in heaven that I see in the natural world. I do not see the value in false gods that I see in past saints and heroes. I do see a true god, and a truthful god, that seeks to parent us through our evolution such that we may transform the universe into the garden of eden. And that god has many faces. It has taken me a long time to understand that across all of mankind the words spoken in ritual whether field, temple or church, are meaningless. It is the safety we feel in ritual that matters – our feeling of membership in the pack and the great comfort that it brings to us no matter what the forum (including TED talks for the new hippie era). We need a christian reformation as well as a restitution. And we need to kill forever the monopoly of the heresy that is state-run-secular-humanism as one of the great failed experiments – another great lie – in human history. A heresy that is a monopoly, and as a monopoly NOT CHRISTIAN OR WESTERN but middle eastern. It is not only islam we must purge from the west, but democratic secular humanism: the worship of the state: the worst false god man has invented in two thousand years. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Curriculum

    [T]HE UNIFYING METHOD: HISTORY: The Evolution of Each As A ‘Technology’ That People Used To Solve Problems. (ie: no wrote.) ARTS – Personal Myths and Legends, Literature, Biography, History(anthropology, archaeology), Geography, Space Reading, Writing, Programming (note that programming is an extension of writing) Health and Hygiene, Diet, Discipline, Diary, Tradition, Ritual, Feast(cooking), Holidays, Celebration. Beauty: The Fine Arts(content), Design(aesthetics), Craft (construction) ETHICS – Interpersonal Virtue (excellences), Ethics and Morality, Natural and Common Law, Jury, Testimony, Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric Family(siblings and parents), Friendship, Alliances, Leadership, Romance, Marriage and Home, Parenting, Aging, Retiring, Death. Hospital, Emergency Services, Charity, Care -and- Commons, Construction, use and maintenance, Manners SCIENCES – Extrapersonal Arithmetic, Measurement, Accounting, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry, (Risk, Fragility, Probability and) Statistics, Calculus Science, Engineering, Macro physics(large), Planetology-Ecology, biology, chemistry, subatomic Money, Banking(credit, interest, notes, investments), Contract, Competition, Entrepreneurship (private), Politics (commons), Economics War, Strategy, Tactics, Fighting, Sport, Fitness CRAFTS – Production Physical transformations (labor careers) Logical Transformations (calculation careers) Organizational Transformations (organizational careers) Institutional Transformations (cross organizational careers )

  • The Curriculum

    [T]HE UNIFYING METHOD: HISTORY: The Evolution of Each As A ‘Technology’ That People Used To Solve Problems. (ie: no wrote.) ARTS – Personal Myths and Legends, Literature, Biography, History(anthropology, archaeology), Geography, Space Reading, Writing, Programming (note that programming is an extension of writing) Health and Hygiene, Diet, Discipline, Diary, Tradition, Ritual, Feast(cooking), Holidays, Celebration. Beauty: The Fine Arts(content), Design(aesthetics), Craft (construction) ETHICS – Interpersonal Virtue (excellences), Ethics and Morality, Natural and Common Law, Jury, Testimony, Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric Family(siblings and parents), Friendship, Alliances, Leadership, Romance, Marriage and Home, Parenting, Aging, Retiring, Death. Hospital, Emergency Services, Charity, Care -and- Commons, Construction, use and maintenance, Manners SCIENCES – Extrapersonal Arithmetic, Measurement, Accounting, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry, (Risk, Fragility, Probability and) Statistics, Calculus Science, Engineering, Macro physics(large), Planetology-Ecology, biology, chemistry, subatomic Money, Banking(credit, interest, notes, investments), Contract, Competition, Entrepreneurship (private), Politics (commons), Economics War, Strategy, Tactics, Fighting, Sport, Fitness CRAFTS – Production Physical transformations (labor careers) Logical Transformations (calculation careers) Organizational Transformations (organizational careers) Institutional Transformations (cross organizational careers )

  • The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

    (important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.

  • The Second Great Criticism of Democracy

    (important)(very important) [Y]ou see, they taught us that the BALANCE OF POWER was what kept us safe from authoritarianism. But this is both false and immaterial. It distracted us from the reason for western institutional and cultural success. There are only three means of organizing man: force, gossip and exchange. We refer to these three means of organization as weapons of influence or methods of coercion. By constructing three houses: 1) aristocracy/military/law of property; 2) church/priesthood/law of family/insurance; 3) burgher/commerce/law of contract; …and requiring the at least tacit acceptance of the other two, each can specialize in the most rapid rate of invention in his means of organizing the polity for the construction of commons. So just as the market can conduct more and faster research into the construction of goods and services, the market for ORDER consisting of the three great specializations, can conduct more and faster research into the construction of commons – without the hindrance of the others. Only the knowledge of the interests of the others. In other words, not by APPROVAL but by DISSENT. Democracy reverses this evolutionary strategy requiring approval and ignoring dissent – and so democracy increases opportunity for parasitism and rent seeking in order to gain passage of every single piece of legislation. If we combine private property (anglo saxon/ aryan), common law (organic evolutionary law), high trust (aryan and christian), rule of law (aryan or at least anglo saxon) we then end up with a population that innovates in the suppression of parasitism and rent seeking almost as fast as it innovates in organization for any given production: private, commons, or family. Hoppe like others has solved the problem of the failure of incentives. I see that as the first analytic criticism of democracy. However, I feel that it is not a causal criticism but merely a consequential one. So in this SECOND criticism of democracy I put forth that the success of the west was not so much in small government as it was in the distribution of government (the production of commons) into specializations requiring survival of DISSENT by the competing houses rather than a monopoly requiring assent. In this analysis, democracy then is merely a sham: a scam by which a group seeks to monopolize powers of coercion in order to hold power by requiring assent rather than surviving dissent. Now, I for a moment let us look at the philosophy of science: in the sequence: {free association, hypothesis, theory, law, truth, tautology} we look for the truth that survives criticism (falsification). The search for truth is one of survival of criticism: dissent. It is not one of justification: assent. So this is also why democracies must engage in constant postmodern lying and propagandizing: because they must manufacture falsity in order to justify falsity. Conversely, aristocratic egalitarianism – the philosophy of the west – is one of survival of dissent. Or stated more simply, the method of organizing the west has be SCIENTIFIC. Which is why the west invented and used science in all walks of life. Because the civilization has practiced scientific action even in its most mystical eras. We can end this monotheistic monopolistic government by assent and restore our anglo-saxon scientific government: three (or more) houses each of which acts according to its interests but whose actions must survive dissent by a jury selected by lot of the constituency of the other houses. More as I continue my work. But I thought it prudent to make the Second Great Criticism of Democracy its own subject of discussion. The second great criticism then is that it is an intentionally unscientific method of government inferior to that form of government which was responsibile for our success.

  • Just Like Industrial And Technological Revolution, What Possibly Will Be The Next Big Revolution Which Would Change The World Order?

    I’m going to posit a very different revolution, that is far more important. Lets look at a set of revolutionary inventions:
    1. Cooperative Revolution
    2. Tool Use Revolution
    3. Language Revolution (??)
    4. Oral History Revolution
    5. Metalwork revolution
    6. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic (first computational revolution)
    7. Greek Rationalism (Aristotelianism and stoicism)
    8. Christian Mysticism ( a regression if there ever was one )
    9. The Printing Press (close analogy to the computational revolution)
    10. Italian Accounting : complex production distribution and trade.
    11. Anglo-Italian Empiricism : industrialization
    12. German and Anglo Mathematics
    13. American Legal Revolution (attempt at making natural law internally consistent)
    14. Darwinian Revolution. (transition from moral justificationism – justification of an argument,  to scientific criticism – survival of ideas from criticism)
    15. Scientific Revolution (exiting human scale, and the socialization of research)
    16. Computer Storage and Computation Revolution. (exiting human operational capacity)

    What I am working on, and what I hope is the next great revolution, is to provide a reformation to counter the Pseudoscientific Era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Keynes, Mises) imposed by Academia, the same way that the British (English and Scottish enlightenments) provided a reformation against the era of mysticism (Justinian and Augustinian imposed Christianity).

    We know now that the Flynn effect is caused largely by the incremental conversion of human thinking from a multitude of case specific rules of utility (think recipes) to a limited number of general rules describing the behavior of similar systems (think theories).   Depending upon who you ask, this education in scientific thinking appears to have created a 20 point increase (more than one standard deviation) in demonstrated human intelligence. 

    Likewise, the application of scientific thought to the social sciences in order to overcome the equivalent of the second christianization of European civilization – this time with pseudoscience instead of mysticism –  will very likely produce an equal if not greater affect on our economies, our polities, and our demonstrated intelligence. 

    And like the conversion from mysticism to physical sciences, the conversion of pseudoscience to social science, will be just as difficult and costly and require an equally challenging and costly effort.

    We have only half-escaped our primitive mysticism.  The next revolutionary science is not robotics. It’s social science: morality: natural laws of cooperation.   With which any advancement in machine intelligence is governable, and without which it is a risk.

    THE WARRANTIES OF TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY
    If you cannot warranty that your testimony survives these tests then you cannot claim you speak truthfully.
    • Identity (property consistency)
    • Internal Consistency (logical consistency)
    • External Correspondence (empirical consistency)
    • Existential Possibility (operational definitions)
    • Parsimony (identified limits – what we refer to as falsification)
    • Full Accounting (full accounting of all costs including opportunity costs)
    • Demonstrable Morality (consisting of fully-informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality.)

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Just-like-Industrial-and-Technological-Revolution-what-possibly-will-be-the-next-big-revolution-which-would-change-the-world-order

  • What Do You Think Of Americans Who Deny The Existence Of The Massive Red State/blue State Cultural Division In The Nation?

    The most honest answer is not to create a false frame of ‘we’ and instead break it by voting patterns (see Pew Research) for an empirical analysis not one of confirming existing priors by guessing correlations.

    1. Roughly speaking, the north-south divide present since the civil war remains.
    2. Primarily, people vote by two criteria: Race, Religion and Marital status.

    In other words, people vote their reproductive strategies.  Which should be obvious.

    1. White men vote red and always have voted as such. 
    2. White married women vote predominantly red and have voted as such.
    3. White single women vote predominantly blue by the largest margin (again obvious)
    4. Everyone else votes by race (blue) against the white absolute nuclear family.


    Ever since the South abandoned it’s post-reconstruction prohibition on the Republican party (the party of Lincoln, and the party against slavery, and against the expansion of the souther alliance into the western territories), the parties have increasingly shifted demographically to reflect white absolute nuclear families – with the family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and education that preserve capital (red)  – against the traditional, serial-marriage, and single mother (fatherless) families that cannot preserve capital in the homestead.

    People retain their reproductive strategies, family structures, moral codes and norms across many generations.  It takes about 400 years to rotate a family upward in social and economic class. (yep. sorry.)  The four waves of British Isle immigrants still use the family structures, norms, and values that they did prior to migration.  The germans still use theirs.  The Italians theres. The french theirs.  Et al.

    No one assimilates morally or normatively at all.  We assimilate commercially, and commercialism is america’s cultural tradition. But politically we never assimilate at all. Why?  Because political action by nature of its imprecision is a demonstrated preference of a moral, not empirical not commercial bias.  And when we call upon our intuitions in the face of overwhelming choices, we do what nature evolved us to do: decide by our reproductive strategies.

    Why?  For impolitic reasons: largely speaking northern Europeans eradicated their lower classes through a combination of manorialism, delated reproduction, and aggressive hanging of 1/2-1% of the troublemakers per year. And anyone who understands the theory of compound interest will likely understand the tremendous genetic impact of that process over the 1000 years of hanging, and the 3500 years of agrarianism. Effectively, all northern europeans are members of the middle class, and protestant – what is called ‘the Hanjal line’.  The catholics represent largely the unmodified natural distribution of the classes, practicing traditional families.  The africans that came as slaves have returned (thanks to 60’s progressives) to their traditional serial marriages (70% of all births to single mothers).

    Correlation is not causation.  Humans are unequal. We carry our tribal histories with us in our genes, in our family structures, in our  morals and norms, because these were and remain, reproductive strategies.
     
    As such all votes are demographic votes. No one assimilates. No one changes. Some reproduce more, some reproduce less, and he who reproduces more than others eventually wins. No one is converted. No one is persuaded. No one is convinced. At least no one sufficiently convince to alter his political action sufficiently to affect outcomes.

    Net is, all our political debate is a victorian parlor game.  Nothing more.  We are, in matters beyond our direct perception, such as political choice, mere puppets to our genes. 

    If that doesn’t sour you on the irrelevance of democratic choice nothing will: in the end, over time, the class that reproduces most wins. And because majoritarian rule forces a monopoly of control, the lower classes with greatest reproduction win. And under redistribution, we transfer rates of reproduction from the middle class to the lower.  And therefore transfer our future to the most numerous of the lower classes.

    Diversity decreases trust, decreases economic velocity, increases political conflict and increases demand for a totalitarian state as arbiter of differences.

    Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a higher standard of living for the sole reason that the anglos used advanced weaponry (including germs) to conquer primitive peoples and sell of the land and unexploited resources to generations of immigrants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our way of life other than the initial immigrants from Britain practiced common law (which is empirical), and were almost entirely from the genetic middle classes (the french in Quebec are from the lower class, hence aside from their Catholicism and french love of authority, their difference with english Canada).  The germans were not a problem to integrate, and so we never hear about the challenge of german immigration despite the fact that the majority of white america is of german ancestry not British.  That is because they were not a problem.  Everyone else was. If you trace supreme court decisions they reflect the religion and class of the person voting.

    It hurts. It’s true. That’s all there is to it.

    The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law.  Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call class, race, and religious competition.

    Democracy is sufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce resources among multiple priorities.  It is an insufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce or plentiful resource of any kind between competing interests.

    Science very often tells us what we don’t want to hear.
    The democratic era, in the future, will be seen as a pseudoscientific one.
    Just as the Religious era is seen as a mystical one.
    They’re both networks of falsehoods.
    Comfortable lies.

    The truth is quite simple.  We are super-predators that have found that competition through economics productivity is superior to competition through direct violence.

    Western utopianism ended with the abandonment of communism that had held the rest of the world in regressive poverty. We were able to enjoy luxury goods because of privileges granted to us by our predecessors.  The spoils of democracy (and any r-selected behavior) are luxury goods, not beneficial goods.

    Time to give up pseudoscience, the same way we gave up mysticism.

    As painful as it may be.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-Americans-who-deny-the-existence-of-the-massive-red-state-blue-state-cultural-division-in-the-nation

  • Just Like Industrial And Technological Revolution, What Possibly Will Be The Next Big Revolution Which Would Change The World Order?

    I’m going to posit a very different revolution, that is far more important. Lets look at a set of revolutionary inventions:
    1. Cooperative Revolution
    2. Tool Use Revolution
    3. Language Revolution (??)
    4. Oral History Revolution
    5. Metalwork revolution
    6. Reading, Writing and Arithmetic (first computational revolution)
    7. Greek Rationalism (Aristotelianism and stoicism)
    8. Christian Mysticism ( a regression if there ever was one )
    9. The Printing Press (close analogy to the computational revolution)
    10. Italian Accounting : complex production distribution and trade.
    11. Anglo-Italian Empiricism : industrialization
    12. German and Anglo Mathematics
    13. American Legal Revolution (attempt at making natural law internally consistent)
    14. Darwinian Revolution. (transition from moral justificationism – justification of an argument,  to scientific criticism – survival of ideas from criticism)
    15. Scientific Revolution (exiting human scale, and the socialization of research)
    16. Computer Storage and Computation Revolution. (exiting human operational capacity)

    What I am working on, and what I hope is the next great revolution, is to provide a reformation to counter the Pseudoscientific Era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Keynes, Mises) imposed by Academia, the same way that the British (English and Scottish enlightenments) provided a reformation against the era of mysticism (Justinian and Augustinian imposed Christianity).

    We know now that the Flynn effect is caused largely by the incremental conversion of human thinking from a multitude of case specific rules of utility (think recipes) to a limited number of general rules describing the behavior of similar systems (think theories).   Depending upon who you ask, this education in scientific thinking appears to have created a 20 point increase (more than one standard deviation) in demonstrated human intelligence. 

    Likewise, the application of scientific thought to the social sciences in order to overcome the equivalent of the second christianization of European civilization – this time with pseudoscience instead of mysticism –  will very likely produce an equal if not greater affect on our economies, our polities, and our demonstrated intelligence. 

    And like the conversion from mysticism to physical sciences, the conversion of pseudoscience to social science, will be just as difficult and costly and require an equally challenging and costly effort.

    We have only half-escaped our primitive mysticism.  The next revolutionary science is not robotics. It’s social science: morality: natural laws of cooperation.   With which any advancement in machine intelligence is governable, and without which it is a risk.

    THE WARRANTIES OF TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY
    If you cannot warranty that your testimony survives these tests then you cannot claim you speak truthfully.
    • Identity (property consistency)
    • Internal Consistency (logical consistency)
    • External Correspondence (empirical consistency)
    • Existential Possibility (operational definitions)
    • Parsimony (identified limits – what we refer to as falsification)
    • Full Accounting (full accounting of all costs including opportunity costs)
    • Demonstrable Morality (consisting of fully-informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs by externality.)

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Just-like-Industrial-and-Technological-Revolution-what-possibly-will-be-the-next-big-revolution-which-would-change-the-world-order

  • What Do You Think Of Americans Who Deny The Existence Of The Massive Red State/blue State Cultural Division In The Nation?

    The most honest answer is not to create a false frame of ‘we’ and instead break it by voting patterns (see Pew Research) for an empirical analysis not one of confirming existing priors by guessing correlations.

    1. Roughly speaking, the north-south divide present since the civil war remains.
    2. Primarily, people vote by two criteria: Race, Religion and Marital status.

    In other words, people vote their reproductive strategies.  Which should be obvious.

    1. White men vote red and always have voted as such. 
    2. White married women vote predominantly red and have voted as such.
    3. White single women vote predominantly blue by the largest margin (again obvious)
    4. Everyone else votes by race (blue) against the white absolute nuclear family.


    Ever since the South abandoned it’s post-reconstruction prohibition on the Republican party (the party of Lincoln, and the party against slavery, and against the expansion of the souther alliance into the western territories), the parties have increasingly shifted demographically to reflect white absolute nuclear families – with the family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and education that preserve capital (red)  – against the traditional, serial-marriage, and single mother (fatherless) families that cannot preserve capital in the homestead.

    People retain their reproductive strategies, family structures, moral codes and norms across many generations.  It takes about 400 years to rotate a family upward in social and economic class. (yep. sorry.)  The four waves of British Isle immigrants still use the family structures, norms, and values that they did prior to migration.  The germans still use theirs.  The Italians theres. The french theirs.  Et al.

    No one assimilates morally or normatively at all.  We assimilate commercially, and commercialism is america’s cultural tradition. But politically we never assimilate at all. Why?  Because political action by nature of its imprecision is a demonstrated preference of a moral, not empirical not commercial bias.  And when we call upon our intuitions in the face of overwhelming choices, we do what nature evolved us to do: decide by our reproductive strategies.

    Why?  For impolitic reasons: largely speaking northern Europeans eradicated their lower classes through a combination of manorialism, delated reproduction, and aggressive hanging of 1/2-1% of the troublemakers per year. And anyone who understands the theory of compound interest will likely understand the tremendous genetic impact of that process over the 1000 years of hanging, and the 3500 years of agrarianism. Effectively, all northern europeans are members of the middle class, and protestant – what is called ‘the Hanjal line’.  The catholics represent largely the unmodified natural distribution of the classes, practicing traditional families.  The africans that came as slaves have returned (thanks to 60’s progressives) to their traditional serial marriages (70% of all births to single mothers).

    Correlation is not causation.  Humans are unequal. We carry our tribal histories with us in our genes, in our family structures, in our  morals and norms, because these were and remain, reproductive strategies.
     
    As such all votes are demographic votes. No one assimilates. No one changes. Some reproduce more, some reproduce less, and he who reproduces more than others eventually wins. No one is converted. No one is persuaded. No one is convinced. At least no one sufficiently convince to alter his political action sufficiently to affect outcomes.

    Net is, all our political debate is a victorian parlor game.  Nothing more.  We are, in matters beyond our direct perception, such as political choice, mere puppets to our genes. 

    If that doesn’t sour you on the irrelevance of democratic choice nothing will: in the end, over time, the class that reproduces most wins. And because majoritarian rule forces a monopoly of control, the lower classes with greatest reproduction win. And under redistribution, we transfer rates of reproduction from the middle class to the lower.  And therefore transfer our future to the most numerous of the lower classes.

    Diversity decreases trust, decreases economic velocity, increases political conflict and increases demand for a totalitarian state as arbiter of differences.

    Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a higher standard of living for the sole reason that the anglos used advanced weaponry (including germs) to conquer primitive peoples and sell of the land and unexploited resources to generations of immigrants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our way of life other than the initial immigrants from Britain practiced common law (which is empirical), and were almost entirely from the genetic middle classes (the french in Quebec are from the lower class, hence aside from their Catholicism and french love of authority, their difference with english Canada).  The germans were not a problem to integrate, and so we never hear about the challenge of german immigration despite the fact that the majority of white america is of german ancestry not British.  That is because they were not a problem.  Everyone else was. If you trace supreme court decisions they reflect the religion and class of the person voting.

    It hurts. It’s true. That’s all there is to it.

    The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law.  Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call class, race, and religious competition.

    Democracy is sufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce resources among multiple priorities.  It is an insufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce or plentiful resource of any kind between competing interests.

    Science very often tells us what we don’t want to hear.
    The democratic era, in the future, will be seen as a pseudoscientific one.
    Just as the Religious era is seen as a mystical one.
    They’re both networks of falsehoods.
    Comfortable lies.

    The truth is quite simple.  We are super-predators that have found that competition through economics productivity is superior to competition through direct violence.

    Western utopianism ended with the abandonment of communism that had held the rest of the world in regressive poverty. We were able to enjoy luxury goods because of privileges granted to us by our predecessors.  The spoils of democracy (and any r-selected behavior) are luxury goods, not beneficial goods.

    Time to give up pseudoscience, the same way we gave up mysticism.

    As painful as it may be.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-Americans-who-deny-the-existence-of-the-massive-red-state-blue-state-cultural-division-in-the-nation

  • [A] test, by a rational actor, of existential possibility independent of involun

    [A] test, by a rational actor, of existential possibility independent of involuntary transfer by externality defeats most pretense of morality.