Source: Original Site Post

  • Speciation is Less Genetic and More Philosophical, Normative and Institutional

    (important) (alternate theory of man) [M]an adapts through ideas. Speciation in man is determined by his ideas: philosophical, normative and institutional. Man’s genes adapt largely through changes in distributions of reproductive desirability, aggression, intelligence, and impulsivity. These differences do not show up in our current level of genetic study, yet they determine our futures, because our futures are determined by how we compete with one another’s tribes.

    Different civilizations are different species. This defeats the genetic argument to the similarity of man. Forever. That argument is dead. This one reigns.

    Source: (4) Curt Doolittle

  • Are We Too Primitive a Breed or Race to Compete?

    [S]maller brains, greater aggression and greater reproduction defeat larger brains and lower aggression and lower reproduction? Is this a permanent equilibrium? Or is this one of those processes that is deterministic, and that eventually all the calm, smart people are outbred and conquered by the aggressive impulsive dumb people?

    You know, he was wrong about a lot of things, but Gould said that there was no material advantage to intelligence unless in increased reproduction.

    Source: (1) Curt Doolittle

  • Are We Too Primitive a Breed or Race to Compete?

    [S]maller brains, greater aggression and greater reproduction defeat larger brains and lower aggression and lower reproduction? Is this a permanent equilibrium? Or is this one of those processes that is deterministic, and that eventually all the calm, smart people are outbred and conquered by the aggressive impulsive dumb people?

    You know, he was wrong about a lot of things, but Gould said that there was no material advantage to intelligence unless in increased reproduction.

    Source: (1) Curt Doolittle

  • The Alternate History and Future of Man: Aggression. (We have passed peak human.)

    [T]HE ALTERNATE HISTORY OF MAN. (important) (inflammatory)

    • Each wave of man was more aggressive than the previous.
    • Each wave of man exterminated the previous wave of man, whenever advantageous.
    • Hunter-Gatherers had bigger brains but were less numerous and less aggressive.
    • Northern Europeans with big brains are smarter with bigger brains and less aggressive.
    • The Steppe/Desert/Levant has been kicking off waves of increasingly aggressive peoples for thousands of years.
    • The newer peoples are less intelligent, more reproductive, and more aggressive.
    • They are the future of man.
    • Unless we change again, to keep them at bay.
    • The future isn’t one of achieving supra-human intelligence.
    • It’s one of decreasing intelligence and increasing aggression.
    • And the world is running out of the old species with calmer, smarter, bigger brains.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • The Alternate History and Future of Man: Aggression. (We have passed peak human.)

    [T]HE ALTERNATE HISTORY OF MAN. (important) (inflammatory)

    • Each wave of man was more aggressive than the previous.
    • Each wave of man exterminated the previous wave of man, whenever advantageous.
    • Hunter-Gatherers had bigger brains but were less numerous and less aggressive.
    • Northern Europeans with big brains are smarter with bigger brains and less aggressive.
    • The Steppe/Desert/Levant has been kicking off waves of increasingly aggressive peoples for thousands of years.
    • The newer peoples are less intelligent, more reproductive, and more aggressive.
    • They are the future of man.
    • Unless we change again, to keep them at bay.
    • The future isn’t one of achieving supra-human intelligence.
    • It’s one of decreasing intelligence and increasing aggression.
    • And the world is running out of the old species with calmer, smarter, bigger brains.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Libertines are Infected, But We Have the Cure: Propertarianism

    [D]ear Cosmopolitan Libertines: You’re Infected. Infected with a virus of the mind.

    When you hear the word commons, you’ve been misled by the artificial limits to the category of property established by the principle of ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: material things. Yes, material things may be scarce. But cooperation is more scarce. And cooperation is always a shareholder good. And as such, a commons for those shareholders. So, first, you confuse those property rights necessary for the construction of production under inter-temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, planning and labor, with the production of institutional commons: informal and formal institutions. (property rights, truth telling, courts, the jury, rule of law, the common law, liberty, and the militia.) And secondly you presuppose that a commons of necessity can be consumed rather than an investment merely maintained and used (a park). And thirdly you presuppose that the construction of commons must be performed monopolistically rather than civically (a courthouse, a temple, rule of law). And fourth you presuppose that entry into the market is a sufficient payment for constructing the voluntary organization of production that we call consumer capitalism. When this is illogical: if one cannot make use of the market, then it is not logical for him to pay for it by forgoing opportunities for predation, parasitism and consumption. So you wish your market – the voluntary organization of innovation, production, distribution and trade – to be purchased at a discount, if not for free. That in itself an act of parasitism: forgoing an opportunity for trade. Physical resources must be acquired, but institutional resources must be constructed. Both bear costs. But property rights themselves are a commons. The west is better at the production of commons than any other group. The reason being we evolved from a civic society and voluntary organization of production instead of forced production in the lands of irrigation, or primitivism of tribal conflict of the steppe and desert. You have been infected by the cosmopolitan libertines with a cognitive error. This is what they do. They create mental viruses. They create these viruses out of the repetition of half-truths therefore resulting in a process of suggestion that overwhelms reason. And you’ve been infected. It’s OK. We have a cure. Propertarianism.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Bronze Age Europe – Where We Come From

    RECOMMENDED BRONZE AGE EUROPEAN HISTORY BOOKS

    1. JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
    2. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
    3. The Early Germans by Malcolm Todd
    4. The Ancient Paths: Discovering the Lost Map of Celtic Europe

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Bronze Age Europe – Where We Come From

    RECOMMENDED BRONZE AGE EUROPEAN HISTORY BOOKS

    1. JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
    2. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World
    3. The Early Germans by Malcolm Todd
    4. The Ancient Paths: Discovering the Lost Map of Celtic Europe

    Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism is Radical not Reactionary

    Josh Jeppson said something smart last night: that Propertarianism isn’t conservative (reactionary) but innovative. That’s true.

    But then, how do I position it? —“You don’t want to go back to something (maybe some things but not all), so you’re not a reactionary, you don’t want to conserve what we have so you aren’t a conservative, and you don’t want to take what we have further, so you aren’t a progressive. You are (gasp) a revolutionary”—Adam Felix

    Source: Curt Doolittle