Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • ART AS EXAMPLE. DOES “ANGLO” JUST MEAN ELITIST? YES. (useful for the analysis of

    ART AS EXAMPLE. DOES “ANGLO” JUST MEAN ELITIST? YES.

    (useful for the analysis of art)

    —“Pseudoprofound bullshit titles made abstract art pieces appear more profound. “On this basis, one may expect the presence of bullshit to be widespread in the abstract art world.”—Rolf Degen @DegenRolf

    —“Oh, shocking, words can generate meaning! And meaning increases value: Wow! Who ever would have guessed?”—Jason Powell@KillerkattArt

    Actually, it’s not ‘meaning’ it’s ‘sentiment’. Not only can we use words communicate meaning (reason), but we can load (sentiments), and usually by means of suggestion (deception). The ‘big lies’ are all constructed by this method, and postmodernism institutionalized it.

    —“I feel like your comment highlights why strictly anglophone philosophers are poorly equipped to analyze art.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

    I studied at one of the best theoretical art schools in America, and art theory and criticism was my first (and still best) work. One can make truthful (technical) claims. And one can make experiential claims. And one can make political claims. Or one can conflate them (lie).

    The optimum analysis of any work, set of works, movement’s work, or civilization’s work, is to produce all three analyses and put them in competition with truth(meaning), beauty (aesthetics), excellence (craft), to discover what influenced the artist (context-puppet).

    …………………..Truth(meaning)…………..

    ………………………/…………..\……….

    ..Beauty(experience) — Excellence(craft)

    And compare the set of influences and context-puppets to one another, to understand the total meaning of the work whether technological, emotional (self), political (political), or context (universal). I can state any and all of those analyses of any work. As should any student.

    ………….Political………..

    …………/………..\…………

    Emotional — Technological

    Past->……Universal…..<-Present

    Now the next step is to explore the difference between creators who understand their CRAFT as a set of those techniques, for evoking human experience (actors, directors, and editors the best current examples). And those who merely fantasize that they’re not self-pleasuring.

    playing > student > laborer > craftsman > artist > innovator.

    And the next is not to pander to them, or the pretense that postwar art is critique (undermining) is any different from the idiot in the meeting who reminds us of some obvious pedantry for attention and contributes nothing except friction to development of innovations.

    Subtractive <—– Current Condition —–> Addative

    It’s not that I’m Anglo, it’s that I’m ELITIST. If Elitism is synonymous with Anglo, Which I think it is, then that’s fine with me. I haven’t seen anything out of the continent that is anything other than simpering Rousseauian want for return of the lies of the church.

    —“I don’t mean to knock your style or education. I just feel that if you need to construct a box with predesignated specific language that requires others to get in your box to talk about something then the result is insular and alienating.”—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

    You mean, like every single other discipline in the world? Like, literature? Scriptwriting? The play? What do you think they teach you in art school?

    Truth is insular and alienating – that’s why we have it. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t need it. Truth provides the DECIDABLE, not PREFERABLE.

    Here is what I was after: is it art (additive) or is it defecating in public for attention (subtractive)? What is the demarcation between additive and subtractive in art?

    I know you’re a good person. This is my job, and you just provided me with an opportunity to educate others.

    —“Are you sure that your personal categories of “additive” and “subtractive” tells us anything?”—“—Jason Powell @KillerkattArt

    Do you think I’m so absolutely exasperatingly, frustratingly, and annoyingly, (and arrogantly) persistent in driving to first causes without knowing the first causes? 😉

    If it isn’t decidable I say so.

    If it’s decidable I say so.

    Irritating. I know… lol

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-29 10:28:00 UTC

  • Humans grow – we aren’t manufactured. 60% of one generation genetic influence li

    Humans grow – we aren’t manufactured. 60% of one generation genetic influence likely 70%+ six generation influence (that’s why little class rotation), then in-utero, then development at birth, then trauma during very early development(first two years). https://twitter.com/WFlyte/status/1199318952670662657

  • Via Lisa Outhwaite ‘Related to these differences was a peculiar status system. E

    Via Lisa Outhwaite

    ‘Related to these differences was a peculiar status system. England had no formal blood nobility, while such a nobility did develop in France. It was true that ‘England had an aristocracy as powerful as any in Europe – more powerful perhaps…’ At the top was a narrow group of earls and ‘barons’, who were in the thirteenth century being endowed with privileges. Yet somehow these privileges took a different shape from those on the Continent. They were ‘of an almost exclusively political and honorific nature; and above all, being attached to the ‘fief de dignite’, to the “honour”, they were transmissible only to the eldest son. In short, the class of noblemen in England remained, as a whole, more a “social” than a “legal” class. Although, of course, power and prestige lay with this group, it was ‘too ill-defined not to remain largely open.’ Thus ‘In the thirteenth century, the possession of landed wealth had been sufficient to authorize the assumption of knighthood, in fact to make it obligatory.’ Therefore ‘in practice, any family of solid wealth and social distinction’ never ‘encountered much difficulty’ in obtaining permission to use hereditary armorial bearings.

    Bloch’s story is that there was a confusion of ranks up to the Norman invasion, and during the crucial twelfth and thirteenth century England did not move in the continental direction. No nobility based on law and blood, no incipient ‘caste’ in Tocqueville’s sense, emerged. This, as his predecessors had argued, gave the English aristocracy their enduring flexibility and power. ‘It was mainly by keeping close to the practical things which give real power over men and avoiding the paralysis that overtakes social classes which are too sharply defined and too dependent on birth that the English aristocracy acquired the dominant position it retained for centuries.’

    Much of the continent moved towards Tocqueville’s caste and absolutism. For particular reasons one island retains a balance of forces and a dynamic tension between parts of the institutional structure. This would provide shelter for the inventions and ideas of its larger European neighbours’

    – F.W Maitland and the Making of the Modern World, by Macfarlane.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-26 12:55:00 UTC

  • That said, the list is more informative if you compare it to the REST of the for

    That said, the list is more informative if you compare it to the REST of the fortune 400.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-25 20:16:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1199059219842027521

    Reply addressees: @ClownBa73413423

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1199055056659734536

    IN REPLY TO:

    @FullAccountant

    @curtdoolittle Well if the question is are they baiting into hazard or rent seeking, it doesn’t matter how they came to own the teams. Is owning a football team rent seeking? Cosmet + Jewelry are fancy status signals, how is selling them a bait? Gambling is a moral hazard, why the link to Este?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1199055056659734536

  • Steve: Any data by occupation? Because it certainly appears that they favor occu

    Steve: Any data by occupation? Because it certainly appears that they favor occupations that “Bait into Hazard, with Unwarrantable Services”. IOW: White Civ is wealthy partly because of what we DON’T do. But we are vulnerable to those that exploit what we don’t do. (True in USA)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-25 18:40:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1199035217337413640

    Reply addressees: @Steve_Sailer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1198810300406874112

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Steve_Sailer

    https://t.co/nOtx9Gu6ez

    Jewish people make up about 0.2% of the world’s population, so “Jewish Business News’” 2018 estimate that 19% of Forbes’ top 200 richest people on earth are Jewish suggests that the disproportion is approaching two orders of magnitude above random chance. https://t.co/HEjMBLbSus

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1198810300406874112

  • HOW MANY OF THESE ARE OBTAINED BY BAITING INTO HAZARD? (Then, go thru the rest o

    HOW MANY OF THESE ARE OBTAINED BY BAITING INTO

    HAZARD?

    (Then, go thru the rest of the Forbes list, and discover how the white people made their money. )

    MERIT

    3 Lawrence Ellison 27,000 65 Redwood City Oracle (earned)

    13 Michael Dell 14,500 44 Austin Dell

    INGROUP MONEY RAISE ADVANTAGE W/MERIT

    11 Sergey Brin 15,300 36 Palo Alto Google

    11 Larry Page 15,300 36 San Francisco Google

    158 Mark Zuckerberg 2,000 25 Palo Alto Facebook

    WINDFALL VIA OTHERS’ EFFORTS – NO MERIT

    14 Steven Ballmer 13,300 53 Seattle Microsoft(Via Gates)

    326 Margaret Whitman 1,200 53 Atherton Ebay(Via Others)

    INGROUP MONEY RAISE – NO MERIT – RENT SEEKING

    123 Mitchell Rales 2,500 53 Washington Danaher Corp **

    123 Steven Rales 2,500 58 Washington Danaher Corp **

    296 Jeremy Jacobs Sr. 1,300 69 East Aurora sports concessions

    326 John E. Abele 1,200 72 Shelburne healthcare **

    8 Michael Bloomberg 17,500 67 New York Bloomberg

    15 George Soros 13,000 79 Westchester hedge funds

    16 Donald Bren 12,000 77 Newport Beach real estate

    22 Carl Icahn 10,500 73 New York leveraged buyouts

    23 Ronald Perelman 10,000 66 New York leveraged buyouts

    24 George B. Kaiser 9,500 67 Tulsa oil & gas, banking

    26 Sheldon Adelson 9,000 76 Las Vegas casinos, hotels

    29 James Simons 8,500 71 East Setauket hedge funds

    36 Steven Cohen 6,400 53 Greenwich hedge funds

    42 Eli Broad 5,400 76 Los Angeles investments

    44 Len Blavatnik 5,000 52 London Access Industries

    44 David Geffen 5,000 66 Malibu movies, music

    44 Ira Rennert 5,000 75 New York investments

    49 Charles Ergen 4,900 56 Denver EchoStar **

    50 Stephen Schwarzman 4,700 62 New York investments

    52 Samuel I. (Si) Newhouse Jr. 4,500 81 New York publishing

    56 Micky Arison 4,300 60 Bal Harbour Carnival Cruises

    61 Ralph Lauren 4,200 70 New York fashion

    65 Lester Crown & family 4,000 84 Wilmette investments

    65 Richard LeFrak & family 4,000 64 New York real estate

    65 Donald Newhouse 4,000 79 Somerset County publishing

    65 Daniel Ziff 4,000 37 New York inheritance, hedge funds

    65 Dirk Ziff 4,000 45 New York inheritance, hedge funds

    65 Robert Ziff 4,000 43 New York inheritance, hedge funds

    77 Henry Kravis 3,800 65 New York leveraged buyouts

    77 Paul Milstein & family 3,800 87 New York Emigrant, real estate

    77 Samuel Zell 3,800 68 Chicago real estate, private equity

    84 Leonard N. Stern 3,600 71 New York real estate

    85 Stanley Druckenmiller 3,500 56 Pittsburgh hedge funds

    85 Bruce Kovner 3,500 64 New York hedge funds

    85 George Roberts 3,500 66 San Francisco leveraged buyouts

    97 Riley P. Bechtel 3,000 57 San Francisco engineering, construction**

    97 Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. 3,000 84 San Francisco engineering, construction**

    97 Leonard Lauder 3,000 76 New York Estee Lauder

    97 Theodore Lerner 3,000 84 Washington real estate

    97 Steven Spielberg 3,000 62 Pacific Palisades movies

    97 Warren Stephens 3,000 52 Little Rock Stephens Inc. **

    97 David Tepper 3,000 52 Milburn hedge funds

    110 Stephen Ross 2,900 69 New York real estate

    113 Daniel Och 2,800 48 New York hedge funds

    113 Haim Saban 2,800 65 Beverly Hills television

    118 Joan Tisch 2,600 83 New York Loews

    123 Edgar M. Bronfman 2,500 80 New York liquor

    123 Ronald Lauder 2,500 65 New York Estee Lauder

    123 David Rubenstein 2,500 60 Bethesda leveraged buyouts

    139 Mark Cuban 2,400 51 Dallas Broadcast.com http://Broadcast.com

    139 Malcolm Glazer & family 2,400 81 Palm Beach sports teams, real estate

    141 Steve Wynn 2,300 67 Las Vegas casinos, hotels **

    147 Tom Gores 2,200 45 Beverly Hills leveraged buyouts

    147 Bruce Wasserstein 2,200 61 New York Wasserstein Perella, Lazard

    158 Nicolas Berggruen 2,000 48 New York Investments

    158 Leon Black 2,000 58 New York leveraged buyouts

    158 William Gross 2,000 65 Laguna Beach bonds **

    158 Michael Milken 2,000 63 Los Angeles investments

    158 Sumner Redstone 2,000 86 Beverly Hills Viacom

    158 Leslie Wexner 2,000 72 New Albany Limited Brands

    183 Stewart Rahr 1,950 63 New York Kinray

    193 Alan Casden 1,850 63 Beverly Hills real estate

    196 Thomas Pritzker 1,800 59 Chicago hotels, investments

    196 Jerry Speyer 1,800 69 New York real estate

    204 Israel Englander 1,700 61 New York hedge funds

    204 Penny Pritzker 1,700 50 Chicago hotels, investments

    204 Sheldon Solow 1,700 81 New York real estate

    212 Robert Friedland 1,650 59 Singapore mining

    212 Henry Samueli 1,650 55 Newport Beach Broadcom

    220 Thomas Friedkin 1,600 74 Houston Gulf States Toyota

    220 Alec Gores 1,600 56 Beverly Hills leveraged buyouts

    220 Irwin Jacobs 1,600 76 La Jolla Qualcomm

    220 Anthony Pritzker 1,600 48 Los Angeles hotels, investments

    220 Jay Robert Pritzker 1,600 44 Evanston hotels, investments

    230 John Morgridge 1,550 76 Portola Valley Cisco ** (NETA with Jewish Agency)

    230 Isaac Perlmutter 1,550 67 Palm Beach Marvel

    230 Wilma Tisch 1,550 82 New York Loews

    236 Neil Bluhm 1,500 71 Chicago real estate

    236 Robert Kraft 1,500 68 Brookline New England Patriots

    236 Stephen Mandel 1,500 53 Greenwich hedge funds

    236 Daniel Pritzker 1,500 50 Marin County hotels, investments

    236 James Pritzker 1,500 58 Chicago hotels, investments

    236 Jean (Gigi) Pritzker 1,500 47 Chicago hotels, investments

    236 John Pritzker 1,500 56 San Francisco hotels, investments

    236 Karen Pritzker 1,500 51 New Haven hotels, investments

    236 Linda Pritzker 1,500 55 St. Ignatius hotels, investments

    236 Marc Rich 1,500 74 Meggen commodities

    236 Lynn Schusterman 1,500 70 Tulsa oil & gas, investments

    236 John Sperling 1,500 88 Phoenix Apollo Group

    236 Mortimer Zuckerman 1,500 72 New York real estate, media

    272 George Lindemann & family 1,450 73 Palm Beach investments

    272 Bernard Marcus 1,450 80 Atlanta Home Depot

    277 S. Daniel Abraham 1,400 85 Palm Beach Slim-Fast

    277 John Arrillaga 1,400 72 Palo Alto real estate

    277 Alfred Mann 1,400 83 Los Angeles medical devices

    277 Michael Moritz 1,400 55 Mountain View venture capital

    277 Michael Price 1,400 57 Far Hills investments

    277 Tamir Sapir 1,400 62 New York real estate

    277 Alfred Taubman 1,400 85 Bloomfield Hills real estate

    289 Ken Fisher 1,350 58 Woodside Money management **

    289 David Gottesman 1,350 83 Rye investments

    289 Marc Lasry 1,350 49 New York hedge funds (92nd Street Y)

    296 Edmund Ansin 1,300 73 Miami Sunbeam Broadcasting

    296 Ron Baron 1,300 66 New York money management

    296 Leon Charney 1,300 68 New York Real estate

    296 Glenn Dubin 1,300 52 New York hedge funds

    296 Donald Fisher 1,300 81 San Francisco Gap

    296 Doris Fisher 1,300 78 San Francisco Gap

    296 Gary Michelson 1,300 60 Los Angeles medical patents

    317 Arthur Blank 1,250 67 Atlanta Home Depot

    317 Jeffrey Greene 1,250 54 Miami Beach real estate, investments

    317 Thomas H. Lee 1,250 65 New York leveraged buyouts

    317 Herbert Simon 1,250 74 Indianapolis real estate

    317 Peter Sperling 1,250 49 Phoenix Apollo Group

    326 Norman Braman 1,200 77 Miami art, car dealerships

    326 John Fisher 1,200 48 San Francisco Gap

    326 Nicholas Pritzker 1,200 65 Chicago hotels, investments

    326 Alexander Rovt 1,200 57 Brooklyn fertilizer

    341 Leon Cooperman 1,150 66 Short Hills hedge funds

    341 Barry Diller 1,150 67 New York IAC/InterActiveCorp

    341 Joseph Mansueto 1,150 53 Chicago Morningstar **

    347 Marc Benioff 1,100 45 San Francisco Salesforce.com http://Salesforce.com

    347 A. James Clark 1,100 81 Easton Construction **

    347 Robert Fisher 1,100 56 San Francisco Gap

    347 Alan Gerry 1,100 80 Liberty cable television**

    347 James Irsay 1,100 50 Carmel Indianapolis Colts (Father, Bob was Jewish)

    347 Michael Krasny 1,100 56 Highland Park CDW Corp 3

    347 Daniel Snyder 1,100 44 Potomac Washington Redskins

    347 Henry Swieca 1,100 52 New York hedge funds

    366 Peter Lewis 1,050 75 Coconut Grove Progressive Corp

    366 Nelson Peltz 1,050 67 Bedford Investments

    371 William Fisher 1,000 52 San Francisco Gap

    371 Pincus Green 1,000 74 Jerusalem commodities

    371 Jeffry Picower 1,000 67 Palm Beach investments

    371 Steven Schonfeld 1,000 50 Westbury Proprietary Trading

    371 Walter Shorenstein & family 1,000 94 San Francisco real estate

    371 Evgeny (Eugene) Shvidler 1,000 45 London Millhouse LLC

    371 Charles Zegar 1,000 61 New York Bloomberg LP

    394 Jeffrey Lurie 980 58 Haverford Philadelphia Eagles

    396 Nancy Lerner 960 49 Cleveland inheritance

    396 Norma Lerner 960 73 Cleveland inheritance

    396 Randolph Lerner 960 47 Cleveland inheritance

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-25 13:56:00 UTC

  • VAN CREVELD ON THE JUSTIFIABLY ANGRY WHITE WORKING AND UNDERCLASSES Nov 25, 2019

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/white-trash/MARTIN VAN CREVELD ON THE JUSTIFIABLY ANGRY WHITE WORKING AND UNDERCLASSES

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/white-trash/Updated Nov 25, 2019, 9:23 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-25 09:23:00 UTC

  • I don’t know where you get that idea. Most wealthy people are self made by a lon

    I don’t know where you get that idea. Most wealthy people are self made by a long shot, and from the middle class, there is a lot of rotation in and out of the top. but there is a lot of organizational money that rigs the state, and it’s organization that buy influence

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-22 18:06:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197939338069315584

    Reply addressees: @natrolleon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197929489516249093

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197929489516249093

  • THE ERROR OF WEALTH ENVY Let’s say you have 10m in assets. 1M in a home, 100k li

    THE ERROR OF WEALTH ENVY

    Let’s say you have 10m in assets. 1M in a home, 100k liquid 60k in cars. What do you suppose the rest of that money is doing?

    You see, that’s all the separates us… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=512640955999466&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-22 17:20:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197927927251423234

  • THE ERROR OF WEALTH ENVY – FIXING THE REAL PROBLEM Let’s say you have 10m in ass

    THE ERROR OF WEALTH ENVY – FIXING THE REAL PROBLEM

    Let’s say you have 10m in assets. 1M in a home, 100k liquid 60k in cars. What do you suppose the rest of that money is doing?

    You see, that’s all the separates us by income. People with more money have more investments and spend a bit more on food, clothing, cars, home, and entertainment. It’s all status signaling.

    The rest of that money is out ‘working’ for them. But, what’s it doing?

    Organizing research, investment, financing, organizing, producing, distributing, and trading. The result of which is lower-priced goods, services, and information, so that the totality of what you consume is cheaper in costs of time and ‘body wear and tear’ than it was in the past.

    Now, what do you suppose separates poor countries from wealthy countries?

    It’s how much money is out there researching, investing, financing, organizing, producing, distributing, and trading.

    People don’t CONSUME much differently. It’s all status signaling. We have some pretty bad behavior (obesity, bad food, lack of exercise, lack of sufficient socialization).

    Wat’s the biggest problem?

    We can’t segregate by race, ethnicity, and class so that the average Christian with high investment children can have both a cheap house, a decent community, and a good school, without the ‘underclass riff-raff’ problem that is the unspoken falsehood of our age.

    Fix the forced integration problem and restore voluntary disassociation, and we will have cheap decent white neighborhoods free of the alien underclasses who are biologically and cognitively and therefore socially different.

    I can, we can, fix (a) the cost of housing in good neighborhoods and schools, and (b) the cost of education, and (c) the cost of money (credit, interest) very easily.

    Then high investment parents (whites) will separate from low investment parents (non-whites) and we will have far less conflict because we will have far fewer interactions.

    As a consequence, the less evolved (domesticated) peoples to put lower investment into their families and children (because it won’t matter anyway) will restore their drive to conformity in order to gain access to shared benefits.

    At present they simply destroy our incentive to produce shared benefits.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-11-22 12:20:00 UTC