Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • I wish I could bottle the experience of the transformation of life in the early

    I wish I could bottle the experience of the transformation of life in the early 80’s after the tragedy of the 60-77 period. Star wars started the new positive mythos. Reagan restored confidence, discourse and hope. Gibson and Scott gave us visions of a technological rather than warfare future. Technology promised economic opportunity. Studios produced moral movies with white characters, a hint of pagan magic and christian justice, after a decade of degeneracy.

    That brilliance lasted through the 2001 collapse, and the 2002-2008 period that followed was but a temporary interwar peace funded by transfer of excesses into the housing market – America’s most important and nearly exclusive industry.

    I knew the end was nigh because our advantages were consumed.

    We have made moral and yet self destructive and world harming policies since the first world war.

    We are not the worlds parent. We cannot defend Brittania – something she herself would not do. We cannot defend europa. Had the world degenerated into the poverty of communism and had we crushed the communists and socialists at home with the ruthless violence they deserved, then we would still be the wealthiest people on earth, and the rest still wallowing in socialist poverty.

    But we killed europa to constrian germany against the moral corruption of england, and we sacrificed ourselves to constrain communism.

    All so that we would not feel guilty crushing local socialists, most of whom we had only recently allowed to immigrate.

    No. More. Guilt. It drives us to actions we are indeed guilty for.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-23 15:13:00 UTC

  • use this story all the time to illustrate the superiority of Russian and Chinese

    http://articles.philly.com/1986-01-15/news/26052630_1_hostage-crisis-soviet-captives-islamic-liberation-organizationI use this story all the time to illustrate the superiority of Russian and Chinese cultures in their understanding if both human nature and how to deal with “the middle people” of the arid zones who cause all the trouble in the world.

    But even the Russians seem to have lost all aspirations to aristocracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-23 13:11:00 UTC

  • INTERESTING QUESTION: How do family structures vary? The family structure determ

    INTERESTING QUESTION: How do family structures vary?

    The family structure determines:

    the amount of inbreeding

    the inheritance system

    the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system

    the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.

    the degree degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)

    the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government, since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.

    the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.

    the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).

    Conversely increase in family size determines:

    the degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.

    the stress of raising children, since sharing child rearing across generations is so much easier.

    The redistribution family members provide each other with.

    the insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life

    the demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity. 🙂

    LIST OF FAMILY STRUCTURES

    SMALL HOMOGENEOUS HIGH TRUST PRIVILEGED SOCIETIES CAN TOLERATE HIGHLY REDISTRIBUTIVE GOVERNMENTS

    STATE FINANCED SINGLE PARENT FAMILY – Medium term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.

    HIGH TRUST SOCIETIES WITH HIGHER ECONOMIC VELOCITY, CAN TOLERATE LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENTS

    ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.

    NUCLEAR FAMILY, EGALITARIAN NUCLEAR – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.

    MEDIUM TRUST MARGINAL SOCIETIES WITH MEDIUM ECONOMIC VELOCITY – REQUIRE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS

    EXTENDED FAMILY, STEM FAMILY, AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

    A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.

    LOW TRUST, POOR SOCIETIES WITH LOW ECONOMIC VELOCITY – REQUIRE AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS

    TRADITIONAL FAMILY, COMMUNITARIAN FAMILY – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.

    HETAERISTIC MONOGAMY – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations.

    PAIRING FAMILY, SERIAL MARRIAGE – Medium term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.

    CONSANGUINE FAMILY – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-22 16:18:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS Interesting. Displaced people from “the east” are now in e

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS

    Interesting. Displaced people from “the east” are now in evidence around kiev and lviv. They are definitely a little more ‘Russian’ (meaning on the rude side). Which is what a few people seem to be complaining about. But I just got a ride in a taxi from a guy from Lugansk who seems to be ‘doing it right’ here in Kiev. Mostly I think it’s just good nationalism showing up everywhere. It’s so good to be part of this. It’s beautiful.

    If someone gives me that look at a bar again, I’m just going to hit him in the face though. If you come to this city you better behave in a civil manner. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-22 14:56:00 UTC

  • Pretty girls, stray cats, graffiti. Its the people that make a place downtrodden

    Pretty girls, stray cats, graffiti.

    Its the people that make a place downtrodden, not the property.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-22 05:22:00 UTC

  • How Do Family Relationships Differ Between Countries?

    INTERESTING QUESTION:

    The family structure determines:
    1. the amount of inbreeding
    2. the inheritance system
    3. the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
    4. the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
    5. the degree degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
    6. the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government, since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
    7. the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
    8. the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).
    Conversely increase in family size determines:
    • the degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
    • the stress of raising children, since sharing child rearing across generations is so much easier.
    • The redistribution family members provide each other with.
    • the insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
    • the demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity. 🙂

    LIST OF FAMILY STRUCTURES

    SMALL HOMOGENEOUS HIGH TRUST PRIVILEGED SOCIETIES CAN TOLERATE HIGHLY REDISTRIBUTIVE GOVERNMENTS
    • STATE FINANCED SINGLE PARENT FAMILY – Medium term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.

    HIGH TRUST SOCIETIES WITH HIGHER ECONOMIC VELOCITY, CAN TOLERATE LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENTS

    • ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.
    • NUCLEAR FAMILY, EGALITARIAN NUCLEAR – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.


    MEDIUM TRUST MARGINAL SOCIETIES WITH MEDIUM ECONOMIC VELOCITY – REQUIRE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS

    • EXTENDED FAMILY, STEM FAMILY, AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

      A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.

    LOW TRUST, POOR SOCIETIES WITH LOW ECONOMIC VELOCITY – REQUIRE  AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS

    • TRADITIONAL FAMILY, COMMUNITARIAN FAMILY – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.
    • HETAERISTIC MONOGAMY – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations.
    • PAIRING FAMILY, SERIAL MARRIAGE – Medium term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.
    • CONSANGUINE FAMILY – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-family-relationships-differ-between-countries

  • How Do Family Relationships Differ Between Countries?

    INTERESTING QUESTION:

    The family structure determines:
    1. the amount of inbreeding
    2. the inheritance system
    3. the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
    4. the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
    5. the degree degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
    6. the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government, since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
    7. the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
    8. the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).
    Conversely increase in family size determines:
    • the degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
    • the stress of raising children, since sharing child rearing across generations is so much easier.
    • The redistribution family members provide each other with.
    • the insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
    • the demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity. 🙂

    LIST OF FAMILY STRUCTURES

    SMALL HOMOGENEOUS HIGH TRUST PRIVILEGED SOCIETIES CAN TOLERATE HIGHLY REDISTRIBUTIVE GOVERNMENTS
    • STATE FINANCED SINGLE PARENT FAMILY – Medium term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.

    HIGH TRUST SOCIETIES WITH HIGHER ECONOMIC VELOCITY, CAN TOLERATE LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENTS

    • ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.
    • NUCLEAR FAMILY, EGALITARIAN NUCLEAR – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.


    MEDIUM TRUST MARGINAL SOCIETIES WITH MEDIUM ECONOMIC VELOCITY – REQUIRE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS

    • EXTENDED FAMILY, STEM FAMILY, AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

      A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.

    LOW TRUST, POOR SOCIETIES WITH LOW ECONOMIC VELOCITY – REQUIRE  AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS

    • TRADITIONAL FAMILY, COMMUNITARIAN FAMILY – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.
    • HETAERISTIC MONOGAMY – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations.
    • PAIRING FAMILY, SERIAL MARRIAGE – Medium term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.
    • CONSANGUINE FAMILY – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-family-relationships-differ-between-countries

  • Why Don’t Those With High Intelligence Or Those At The Top Of Society End Up Making The World Significantly Better?

    REALLY BAD ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO DO BETTER
    1) How can the world be ‘significantly better’?
    2) If the world would be significantly better,  for whom would the world be ‘significantly worse’ in your interpretation of how the world would be ‘significantly better?’
    3) Before we took action on our hypothesis of, how would we know the world would in fact, ‘be significantly better?’.
    4) Isn’t the most scientific way to make the world significantly better, to experiment with small changes and see if they are successful?
    5) The reason the world is not ‘significantly better’ is not for lack of efforts. Aristotle, Aquinas, Smith and Hume, all made the world better by explaining how the real world works.
    6) When smart people have tried specifically to make the world ‘significantly better’ by telling us what we SHOULD do, rather than what we DO do, they have caused enormous bloodshed (Marx). 
    7) Smart people make the world better all the time.
    8) There is some truth to the fact that very, very, smart people do not engage in the social sciences (it’s the university discipline with the lowest IQ professors and students.) That is because very abstract problems are more interesting; and it is more interesting to convince other very smart people of the obvious, than it is less smart people of that which is not obvious to them. Secondly, unfortunate as it is, we tend to communicate well in a radius of about 15 points of IQ, and cease to be able to communicate across 30 points of IQ. So it’s the people who are above average, but not exceptional that tend to speak to the majority the best. 
    9) To make matters worse, morality increases above 100 points of IQ, and decreases rapidly below it. Furthermore, the ability to determine whether someone is attempting to deceive you or not decreases as well. This leads to the Dunning-Kreuger effect: where we become unconsciously incompetent and overestimate our abilities when we have insufficiently mastered a field of inquiry. Whereas people with higher trust, higher intelligence, and more general knowledge, and who learn by abstract problem solving rather than imitation or training, tend to be able to discern deception, verbalism and pseudoscience, from a truth candidate. So what happens is that smart people find that less smart people can’t discern fact from fiction, and treat them skeptically, and so it is just too much effort, time and frustration to try.  (Really. I work very, very hard at it, and people say I’m good at it, but frankly I think people just can tell that I’m honest, and so that’s why they listen to me, not because they understand what I say.)
    10) The underlying assumption is quite problematic, and only a northern european, a victim of the fallacy of **altruistic punishment** would ask that question. Most of the world does not want to make the world better, but better for them. The difference between warfare and commerce is merely that commerce is mutually constructive.  In both cases we are still competing.  In fact, given history, I am very concerned about anyone who thinks he or she is smart enough to recommend how the world WOULD be better, because it would require a great deal of violence to change it.  I think instead, it is better to state how the world *IS*, in the most scientific terms possible, so that we can make constant improvements to it through incentives.  Lots of marxists justified the murder of 100M people and the destruction of eastern european civilization. Lots of others spent the 20th century constructing pseudosciences and deceptions.  The cost of which we now bear.  As far as I know, science is the only way to make the world better. And even then, it takes a skilled mind to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-don’t-those-with-high-intelligence-or-those-at-the-top-of-society-end-up-making-the-world-significantly-better

  • Why Don’t Those With High Intelligence Or Those At The Top Of Society End Up Making The World Significantly Better?

    REALLY BAD ANSWERS, I’LL TRY TO DO BETTER
    1) How can the world be ‘significantly better’?
    2) If the world would be significantly better,  for whom would the world be ‘significantly worse’ in your interpretation of how the world would be ‘significantly better?’
    3) Before we took action on our hypothesis of, how would we know the world would in fact, ‘be significantly better?’.
    4) Isn’t the most scientific way to make the world significantly better, to experiment with small changes and see if they are successful?
    5) The reason the world is not ‘significantly better’ is not for lack of efforts. Aristotle, Aquinas, Smith and Hume, all made the world better by explaining how the real world works.
    6) When smart people have tried specifically to make the world ‘significantly better’ by telling us what we SHOULD do, rather than what we DO do, they have caused enormous bloodshed (Marx). 
    7) Smart people make the world better all the time.
    8) There is some truth to the fact that very, very, smart people do not engage in the social sciences (it’s the university discipline with the lowest IQ professors and students.) That is because very abstract problems are more interesting; and it is more interesting to convince other very smart people of the obvious, than it is less smart people of that which is not obvious to them. Secondly, unfortunate as it is, we tend to communicate well in a radius of about 15 points of IQ, and cease to be able to communicate across 30 points of IQ. So it’s the people who are above average, but not exceptional that tend to speak to the majority the best. 
    9) To make matters worse, morality increases above 100 points of IQ, and decreases rapidly below it. Furthermore, the ability to determine whether someone is attempting to deceive you or not decreases as well. This leads to the Dunning-Kreuger effect: where we become unconsciously incompetent and overestimate our abilities when we have insufficiently mastered a field of inquiry. Whereas people with higher trust, higher intelligence, and more general knowledge, and who learn by abstract problem solving rather than imitation or training, tend to be able to discern deception, verbalism and pseudoscience, from a truth candidate. So what happens is that smart people find that less smart people can’t discern fact from fiction, and treat them skeptically, and so it is just too much effort, time and frustration to try.  (Really. I work very, very hard at it, and people say I’m good at it, but frankly I think people just can tell that I’m honest, and so that’s why they listen to me, not because they understand what I say.)
    10) The underlying assumption is quite problematic, and only a northern european, a victim of the fallacy of **altruistic punishment** would ask that question. Most of the world does not want to make the world better, but better for them. The difference between warfare and commerce is merely that commerce is mutually constructive.  In both cases we are still competing.  In fact, given history, I am very concerned about anyone who thinks he or she is smart enough to recommend how the world WOULD be better, because it would require a great deal of violence to change it.  I think instead, it is better to state how the world *IS*, in the most scientific terms possible, so that we can make constant improvements to it through incentives.  Lots of marxists justified the murder of 100M people and the destruction of eastern european civilization. Lots of others spent the 20th century constructing pseudosciences and deceptions.  The cost of which we now bear.  As far as I know, science is the only way to make the world better. And even then, it takes a skilled mind to know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-don’t-those-with-high-intelligence-or-those-at-the-top-of-society-end-up-making-the-world-significantly-better

  • (Asthma attack. Something in the food. Sulfites of some kind. Worst in a decade.

    (Asthma attack. Something in the food. Sulfites of some kind. Worst in a decade. Might have to hit the hospital. Civilization is dangerous to your health. Too many chemicals everywhere.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-19 20:53:00 UTC