Curt Doolittle

Theme: Class

  • Realities of IQ in Business

    (No jimmy, not everyone can join the upper middle class) People above 140 come up with new concepts. People above 130 come up with new business ideas. People above 120 exploit niches in markets with existing ideas. People above 110 work harder than others are willing to at capturing marginal opportunities at lower profit, that better companies are unwilling to chase. People above 100 might, if they’re lucky manage well. People below 100 do the work of bringing others’ ideas to fruition. People below 85 are too difficult and expensive to train to work on ideas.

    (If you thought of it, and you arent’ in the 130+ category, someone thought of it already, and decided it wasn’t possible, or worth it. on the other hand, if you are willing to serve niche customers who you can empathize with that is something you can turn into money. But you must get customers, you cannot attract them.)

  • Realities of IQ in Business

    (No jimmy, not everyone can join the upper middle class) People above 140 come up with new concepts. People above 130 come up with new business ideas. People above 120 exploit niches in markets with existing ideas. People above 110 work harder than others are willing to at capturing marginal opportunities at lower profit, that better companies are unwilling to chase. People above 100 might, if they’re lucky manage well. People below 100 do the work of bringing others’ ideas to fruition. People below 85 are too difficult and expensive to train to work on ideas.

    (If you thought of it, and you arent’ in the 130+ category, someone thought of it already, and decided it wasn’t possible, or worth it. on the other hand, if you are willing to serve niche customers who you can empathize with that is something you can turn into money. But you must get customers, you cannot attract them.)

  • REALITY OF IQ AND BUSINESS (No jimmy, not everyone can join the upper middle cla

    REALITY OF IQ AND BUSINESS

    (No jimmy, not everyone can join the upper middle class)

    People above 140 come up with new concepts.

    People above 130 come up with new business ideas.

    People above 120 exploit niches in markets with existing ideas.

    People above 110 work harder than others are willing to at capturing marginal opportunities at lower profit, that better companies are unwilling to chase.

    People above 100 might, if they’re lucky manage well.

    People below 100 do the work of bringing others’ ideas to fruition.

    People below 85 are too difficult and expensive to train to work on ideas.

    (If you thought of it, and you arent’ in the 130+ category, someone thought of it already, and decided it wasn’t possible, or worth it. on the other hand, if you are willing to serve niche customers who you can empathize with that is something you can turn into money. But you must get customers, you cannot attract them.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 12:37:00 UTC

  • DO INDIVIDUALS IN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES EARN THEIR STATUS? So are you saying tha

    DO INDIVIDUALS IN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES EARN THEIR STATUS?

    So are you saying that generation after generation of underclass membership is unearned? Generation after generation of working class membership is unearned? Generation after generation of middle-class membership is unearned? Generation after generation of upper class is unearned? Generation after generation of Aristocracy is unearned?

    The ever-present grinding of (a) genetic regression to the mean, (b) economic competition (c) political competition , (d) military competition makes preservation of assets almost impossible.

    Are you rationalizing or are you judging on the evidence. Becuase the evidence is that (a) classes are genetic in origin, (b) there is significant rotation between neighboring classes, (c) that the middle class contains most of the genetic virtue of the population, with aristocracy working aggressively through reproductive selection to preserve genetic, material, territorial, social, and political capital.

    So if you have any example of any extant aristocracy that is not holding its own through merit then that would be a further empirical test. But your opinion otherwise is merely justification.

    FAMILIES CREATE ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES OVER GENERATIONS.

    few wealthy families survive. few businesses survive, few civic organizations, and even few nations survive multiple generations of competition. Those families, businesses, civic organizations and nations that survive more than three generations do so because of their ability to compete.

    In other words, a natural aristocracy (emphasis on natural), is evidence of excellence, unless you can find (Rothschilds) an immoral means of achieving it.

    NO SPECIAL PLEADING

    and one example does not invalidate a distribution, just as one example does not validate a distribution. Outliers do not determine general rules. If we look at the history of aristocracy it is the most successful political order in human history, and democracy is merely a method of distributing the spoils of technological or military windfalls (athenian silver mine comes to mind.)

    WHY?

    Because once you are self sustaining the only signals you can produce of value are those that improve the commons (arts). The germans created the high point in europe for the simple reason that many princedom’s competed for signals and in doing so financed the arts and sciences.

    FALLACY OF THE BRITISH ARGUMENT AGAINST ARISTOCRACY

    The fallacy of your argument is in attributing merit to the individual rather than the family and rather to the lineage. Aristocracy is a product of lineage. Individualism is merely an excuse for failing to produce a lineage capable of accumulating genetic, material, territorial, social and political capital. In other words, your argument is a (common British) excuse by failed peoples to attribute merit to individuals rather than to organizations, and to families. In other words, it’s the most common repetition of the most common British moral fraud: lowlife false virtue signaling.

    INCENTIVES: ARISTOCRACY DEMONSTRATES LONGER TIME PREFERENCE AND THE ACCUMULATION OF COMMONS.

    Whereas democracy demonstrates the tragedy of the commons writ large.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 09:33:00 UTC

  • CHOOSE: LARGE CASTE, SMALL NATION As South America, Islamic Civilization, Indian

    CHOOSE: LARGE CASTE, SMALL NATION

    As South America, Islamic Civilization, Indian Civilization, and the Roman Empire demonstrated, there is no ‘uniformity’ or equality possible thru inbreeding. We either divide into nation-states or we divide into castes.

    So we can only choose the to distribute hierarchies and underclasses across many small states with possible rotations, or concentrate them in an inescapable caste-trap in large states.

    This is effectively law of nature that humans would have to act against their personal and reproductive interests to change.

    For the simple reasons that (a) some races have been more successful at morphological evolution through paedomorphic mating, (b) we are unequally desirable as mates, friends, partners, allies, and leaders, because of degrees of paedomorphic evolution and eugenic culling of the underclasses, and (c) we demonstrate both kin selection(more male) and hypergamy(more female) mating preferences.

    So we can choose castes or nations. And the evidence is in: Many small nations are superior at producing relative equality.

    That this is both obvious and logical is in itself a criticism of our tendency to seek safety in numbers even when it is against our interests, and to imagine commonality of thought and interest where it does not and cannot exist.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-16 08:34:00 UTC

  • Strategies – Not Steady States

    STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES Communism …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection ) …. (mandatory consumption) …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets ) …. (strength in numbers) Market Government …. (middle class – medium term – production) …. (mandatory exchange) …. (productive offense – market exchange of assets) …. (strength in adaptation/evolution) Fascism …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection) …. (mandatory production/contribution) …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets) …. (strength in ability[resources])
    Innovative < —————- > Defensive …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible) …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible) …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive) Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible) ….Classical-Liberalism, (competitively possible) …. ….Christian Monarchism (competitively possible) …. …. ….Fascism (particularism) We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows. —Curt

  • Strategies – Not Steady States

    STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES Communism …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection ) …. (mandatory consumption) …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets ) …. (strength in numbers) Market Government …. (middle class – medium term – production) …. (mandatory exchange) …. (productive offense – market exchange of assets) …. (strength in adaptation/evolution) Fascism …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection) …. (mandatory production/contribution) …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets) …. (strength in ability[resources])
    Innovative < —————- > Defensive …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible) …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible) …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive) Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible) ….Classical-Liberalism, (competitively possible) …. ….Christian Monarchism (competitively possible) …. …. ….Fascism (particularism) We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows. —Curt

  • STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES Communism …. (lower class – short term – consumpt

    STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES

    Communism

    …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )

    …. (mandatory consumption)

    …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )

    …. (strength in numbers)

    Market Government

    …. (middle class – medium term – production)

    …. (mandatory exchange)

    …. (productive offense – market exchange of assets)

    …. (strength in adaptation/evolution)

    Fascism

    …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)

    …. (mandatory production/contribution)

    …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)

    …. (strength in ability[resources])

    Innovative < —————- > Defensive

    …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)

    …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)

    …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)

    Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)

    ….Classical-Liberalism, (competitively possible)

    …. ….Christian Monarchism (competitively possible)

    …. …. ….Fascism (particularism)

    We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.

    —Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 16:03:00 UTC

  • NEW SLANG omfg “OVEN MIDDLE CLASS” Middle-class liberals whose primary method of

    NEW SLANG omfg

    “OVEN MIDDLE CLASS”

    Middle-class liberals whose primary method of signaling is advocating for policies that ruin the areas they don’t live in and the lives of people they don’t socialize with. Not-In-My-Back-Yard multiculturalists.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-12 15:05:00 UTC

  • Yes, Lying Is A Strategy For The Left – But Not The Right.

    —The proof is in the Left’s success.— Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy. If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded? —Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.— Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation. Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident. So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends. —And they are a very eugenic group.— If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science). –libertarianism is a straw dog — Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie. BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: “If lying works we should use it” AND HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING “Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default” we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now. TRUTH IS ENOUGH So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well. That’s my response. 😉