Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • The Atlantic’s 2009 Atlantic 50 list of the 50 most influential pundits.

    Retweeted Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer): Here are demographics of “The Atlantic’s” 2009 Atlantic 50 list of the 50 most influential pundits. I found backgrounds of 48.5 of the 50: 96% white 82% male 50% ethnically Jewish 23% ethnically R Catholic 20% ethnically Protestant 3% Armenian 2% black 1% Hisp 2% Muslim https://t.co/O8JMvNw3wj

  • The Atlantic’s 2009 Atlantic 50 list of the 50 most influential pundits.

    Retweeted Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer): Here are demographics of “The Atlantic’s” 2009 Atlantic 50 list of the 50 most influential pundits. I found backgrounds of 48.5 of the 50: 96% white 82% male 50% ethnically Jewish 23% ethnically R Catholic 20% ethnically Protestant 3% Armenian 2% black 1% Hisp 2% Muslim https://t.co/O8JMvNw3wj

  • “Never appease Marxists, it only whets their appetite.”— Edward Townes

    —“Never appease Marxists, it only whets their appetite.”— Edward Townes

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-20 22:14:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998326033999855618

  • Intelligence and Political Affiliation: Scale Causes Regression To The Mean

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-intelligence-average-IQ-test-scores-any-calculated-metric-of-the-average-American-conservative/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=54709e6f&srid=u4Qv ALL THREE OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE (And obvious.) 1) Libertarians(7%) are smarter than Liberals(25%). 2) Republicans(26%) are smarter than Democrats(29%). 3) Liberals(25%) are smarter than Conservatives(36%). Why? Increases in size of groups regresses to the mean. (Again, obvious). Smaller groups of educated people will test higher than larger groups. PROBLEMS WITH ALL SUCH MEASUREMENTS 1) People, but men in particular, do not mature (in IQ) until 22 (at least). 2) We have no test of adult IQ, only children. 3) We tend to use SAT scores as a proxy for IQ. (Good but subset) 4) We tend to use degrees as a proxy for IQ. (Bad proxy) 5) We cannot match SAT and Degrees to Political Preference. 6) We can only survey REPORTED Political Affiliation with REPORTED degree. 7) The vast majority of degrees are (a) ‘nonsense’ degrees (gut courses) and of those the vast majority are (b) by women. 8) The vast majority of advanced degrees are equally nonsense degrees (education, etc). And a disproportionate number of men do not pursue degrees since the trades do not require them. 9) The gender gap is large and ever increasing. Meaning white marrieds, and males against unmarried women of all groups and minorities (who are no longer minorities). THE REAL ANSWER IS NOT INTELLIGENCE BUT GENDER As far as I know the distributions are relatively normal As far as I know gender is a better predictor than intelligence. As far as I know the country is entirely red by men’s vote and almost entirely blue by women’s vote. For this reason also: democrats and liberals dominate mental illness. For this reason also: democrats and liberals report lower happiness. May 19, 2018 9:42pm

  • Intelligence and Political Affiliation: Scale Causes Regression To The Mean

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-intelligence-average-IQ-test-scores-any-calculated-metric-of-the-average-American-conservative/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=54709e6f&srid=u4Qv ALL THREE OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE (And obvious.) 1) Libertarians(7%) are smarter than Liberals(25%). 2) Republicans(26%) are smarter than Democrats(29%). 3) Liberals(25%) are smarter than Conservatives(36%). Why? Increases in size of groups regresses to the mean. (Again, obvious). Smaller groups of educated people will test higher than larger groups. PROBLEMS WITH ALL SUCH MEASUREMENTS 1) People, but men in particular, do not mature (in IQ) until 22 (at least). 2) We have no test of adult IQ, only children. 3) We tend to use SAT scores as a proxy for IQ. (Good but subset) 4) We tend to use degrees as a proxy for IQ. (Bad proxy) 5) We cannot match SAT and Degrees to Political Preference. 6) We can only survey REPORTED Political Affiliation with REPORTED degree. 7) The vast majority of degrees are (a) ‘nonsense’ degrees (gut courses) and of those the vast majority are (b) by women. 8) The vast majority of advanced degrees are equally nonsense degrees (education, etc). And a disproportionate number of men do not pursue degrees since the trades do not require them. 9) The gender gap is large and ever increasing. Meaning white marrieds, and males against unmarried women of all groups and minorities (who are no longer minorities). THE REAL ANSWER IS NOT INTELLIGENCE BUT GENDER As far as I know the distributions are relatively normal As far as I know gender is a better predictor than intelligence. As far as I know the country is entirely red by men’s vote and almost entirely blue by women’s vote. For this reason also: democrats and liberals dominate mental illness. For this reason also: democrats and liberals report lower happiness. May 19, 2018 9:42pm

  • Reminder. I don’t hate on anyone. I have a class thing, and a truth thing. Both

    Reminder. I don’t hate on anyone. I have a class thing, and a truth thing. Both of these are solvable. But I don’t hate on anyone.

    Let a thousand nations bloom.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 22:08:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997962192044593152

  • I DON’T DO HATE Reminder. I don’t hate on anyone. I have a class thing, and a tr

    I DON’T DO HATE

    Reminder. I don’t hate on anyone. I have a class thing, and a truth thing, and a voluntary exchange thing. All three of these are solvable. But I don’t hate on anyone.

    Let a thousand nations bloom.

    (But yes, I do exasperation all the time. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 18:08:00 UTC

  • UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS You know when you’ve been out of college a while and

    UPGRADE CYCLE OF MOVEMENTS

    You know when you’ve been out of college a while and you realize you need to upgrade friends? I mean, they got you to this point, and maybe there is a keeper in there, but you really need to upgrade to people who more share your career, family, or lifestyle?

    Businesses go through a similar cycle, of selling to whomever they can get, to those who others don’t serve well, to those that are mainstream, to depending on their best customers, and if possible they shoot for ferrari-gucci territory of specializing in the pure signal market.

    Movements go through very similar evolutions. You start with the fringe because they’re the extreme novelty seekers. The fringe spreads your message to those seeking to augment their own novelties. Those spread to those seeking ideas. To those that are searching for solutions. To those that want a solution to rally around.

    What we fail to mention is that we must rid ourselves of people who might be a drag on the next market. And this is sometimes painful. Some people cannot follow. Some have followed enough. Some can follow, some drive, and some lead it. And if you are lucky you develop a group that leads it in different directions (I think that’s us) rather than tries to maintain control of it (as did NRx).

    Furthermore, there are people you must very clearly disassociate yourself, your business, or your movement from, because their desires for attention, influence, and control ( or to divide, or undermine ) your ability to gain the next more advantageous market.

    Most of you know how I work – very ‘thoroughly’ – by immersing myself in a subject, tearing it apart, and rebuilding what I can from the few grains of truth I found. I then use established groups as test subjects and attack those ideas – because the very passionate defend them intensely. If you are of a certain mind this can be fascinating to watch. If you are of other minds, this can be upsetting. But it is science at its best: exhaustive reduction to operational language.

    Over the past few days I’ve been working at making some very clear distinctions, and creating some distances. I have very clear reasons for doing this.

    I’ve never considered myself ‘alt right’ because it is synonymous with the use of critique (disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, trolling, propagandizing) and utterly devoid of innovative solutions to the problems we face. Hence why I used ‘New Right’ until others coopted it.

    We have seen the main body of the previous alt right crash and burn since Charlottesville. We have seen the intellectual resistance ‘right’ (or rather then right classical liberals) take over the discourse. But they are just creating a thin veil of resistance against the onslaught of the Cathedral Complex.

    The question I want to answer, is where from here?

    For myself, I want to increase the number and quality people increasingly ‘the ordinary right’. Why?

    There is nothing unpalatable about my work – it’s an innovation on classical liberalism. I don’t hate on anyone. Every group can transcend. If we only end cosmopolitanism and take responsibility for doing it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 17:55:00 UTC

  • The Value of The Classes

    There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.

  • The Value of The Classes

    There is a very great difference between transforming the state of the physical world by physical coercion (labor), and transforming the choices and organization of people using incentives (layers of entrepreneurship and management). The physical world can’t choose between options. Man can choose between options unless he is in fact a slave – thereby lacking exit. Now, one might say that exit is not itself a favorable choice, but then it is a choice for labor, and not a choice for slaves. The Communist and Socialist wants to create serf labor – lacking exit but the management (state) takes ownership for the survival of the serfs. The Democratic socialist wants to preserve voluntary organization of production but monopolize involuntary production of commons by maximum extraction of the profits of the market. The classical liberal wants to preserve the private production of goods, services, and information, and the private production of all commons it is possible to produce in that market, while limiting the involuntary production of commons to those of via-negativa constraint: Military, Justice, Law. The anarchist (libertarian) wants to prohibit the production of involuntary commons (despite this is as impossible as communism since there is no incentive to participate in an uncompetitive polity, when a polity is and of itself, a commons. We cannot restore pastoralism(zero-commons). Even if those peoples that have never succeeded at agrarianism and been through it’s evolutionary grinder, desperately want to restore it and resist civilization at every opportunity. All the potential value is created by the martial aristocracy. All the value is created by the entrepreneurial class. The vast amount of the benefit is obtained by the laboring classes, and the underclasses that would otherwise be dead. The beneficiary of civlization is largely labor. The principle benefit of the few at the top, and the minority in the middle, is signaling that preserves their identification as those who successfully organize potential, organize production distribution and trade, and organize the labor that requires little other than the physical to transform the physical world.