To get status signals and attention in a country where everyone is desperately lonely, lives an an illusion of their own making created out of consumer goods, and lacks any kind of validation from others because everyone else is doing the same thing.
Yes, that’s really the reason.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-in-America-take-something-thats-innocent-and-turn-it-into-something-that-they-think-is-racist
It’s Utopian, dysgenic, devolutionary, and entirely false, which is why it sells.
You don’t think religions sell because they’re realistic or true? Neither do political ideologies.
Here is some humbling and painful truth:
1) Those civilizations that were most successful in preventing from access to food, delaying reproduction, preventing access to reproduction, enslaving, starving, killing, sending to war, or abandoning to the elements, the largest number of their lower classes, consistently produce the highest standards of living.
Why? It’s pretty simple math: productive people are only so productive. The very best only a bit more productive, and they are small in number. The person at the bottom is six times more damaging than the person at the top is beneficial. SIX TIMES. (Or at least, like Pareto’s rule, that it’s the inverse of, it’s a very good rule of thumb.)
2) Western Civilization, from the corded ware (Kurgan) people onward, (the european branch of the Aryan Invasions) out of Ukraine and what is now southern Russia, adopted these eugenic practices and redistributed resources upward increasing the rates of the middle class reproduction. Beginnig with the church’s ban on intermarriage, and the adoption of Bipartite Manorialism in Frisia, and the aggressive hanging of 1/2 to 1% of the population per year, until by the late middle ages – almost everyone living in Europe was a descendent of the genetic if not economic and social middle class.
3) american puritans recruited people of ‘character’ and the original at least puritan colonies were intended to be a eugenic experiment. This only ended with the marxist, socialist, bolshevik, and soviet cooption of the university and media as an overwhelming counter-enlightenment to that provided by Darwin and Spencer. The pseudosciences of Boaz, Marx, Freud, and even Cantor were propagated to restore the underclass to some level of political control now that they had the economic means available that were provided by the industrial revolution, and the somewhat foolish enfranchisement of non-property owners and women. Meritocracy after all, is a eugenic strategy.
4) Western civilization, beginning with the separation of western empirical, common, judge discovered law (law), from celebrations, festivals, and education (religion), has always been empirical. Our greek reason and british empiricism that we call ‘science’ today evolved from this legal tradition. To attack this empiricism, particularly after Darwin and Maxwell’s revelations, and Nietzche’s attempt to resurrect greek religion just as bacon, lock, smith, and hume had resurrected greek reason – the left invented multiple layers of progressive falsehoods:
The myth of oppression of the equal underclasses rather than the necessity of domestication of the inferior underclasses.
The Utopian vision of a world run by the underclasses (marxism). Despite the evidence that the world universally sorts by iq and genetic class except for rotations in and out of the middle class due to mating and economic lottery effects.
The great lies of social science: Marxian history, Boazian Anthropology, Freudian Psychology.
WHEN THESE FAILED to produce a revolution the left turned to “Scientific Socialism”.
The great lies of economic pseudoscience: managed economies, central planning, world socialism.
The Great Lies of Political science: That democracy was a good, rather than a luxury. That democracy was possible for the resolution of disputes in heterogeneous polities rather than the prioritization of wants in homogenous polities. That majoritarian monopoly was desirable, or produced beneficial ends. That
The Great Lies of Law: that rule of law was not determined by the natural properties of mankind that we could enumerate to allow each other to cooperate, but that these laws were arbitrary, discretionary commands that could be followed like the rules of a corporation.
WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to the Culture of Critique (attack on culture).
The Frankfurt school’s false criticisms of art, of western civilization, of white men, of western history.
WHEN THESE FAILED the left turned to it’s only remaining option:
1) to immigrate underclasses in order to obtain power through invasion and displacement.
2) to switch from criticism to political correctness and the enfranchisement not o productive labor and families but of every fringe group possible
3) to switch from rational argument to simply repeating messages and lies. (alinsky etc).
THE RESULT is what we live with today:
1) the destruction of the family that was the condition of enfranchisement into the american eugenic order.
2) the destruction of the rule of law so that the constitution is no longer a document of the science of cooperation but a justification for war against western civilization.
3) the destruction of the Whig History of the continuous evolution of western civilization.
4) the devolution of the parties into married whites, and unmarried white women and the underclasses.
5) The big sort, where people are nationally relocating to be near people like them.
6) We are on the brink of civil war (and frankly I’m working to start it)
https://www.quora.com/Is-liberalism-idealistic-as-opposed-to-being-realistic
To get status signals and attention in a country where everyone is desperately lonely, lives an an illusion of their own making created out of consumer goods, and lacks any kind of validation from others because everyone else is doing the same thing.
Yes, that’s really the reason.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-in-America-take-something-thats-innocent-and-turn-it-into-something-that-they-think-is-racist
its ok. you can read three pieces on my site and you’ll be done with libertinism – recognizing it’s another marxist deception.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 17:46:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765605669848449026
Reply addressees: @xenaarchy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765605429699223552
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/765605429699223552
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-black-race-judged-off-of-its-least-successful-members/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=eee78e6cHARSH TALK FOR SPREADING LIES
(staying on message: different institutions for different distributions)
It isn’t. It’s judged by the dominance of its race in failures of education, crime, civic behavior, business achievement, intellectual achievement, and artistic and literary achievement.
The east Asian and western Europeans have aggressively killed off their lower classes through winters, starvation, enslavement, hanging, beheading, war, and a very severe justice system for thousands of years. The rest of the world has not. So the size of the underclasses in the black, Arabic, Turkic, Hispanic, and southeast Asian worlds is far higher a percentage than in the more northern climes. West and east were eugenic civilizations. Rice is a brutal system requiring disciplined work 360 days a year. Western winters are unforgiving.
We know the reasons for black underclass achievement: (a) the disproportionate size of the black underclass below 85 IQ, and the comparatively small sizes of its middle and upper middle classes, and total absence of an upper class, (b) earlier and more rapid maturity accompanied by the same level of hormones, leading to impulsivity and aggression, (c) lower verbal intelligence, (d) lower aggregate intelligence, (e) destruction of the black family by the progressive programs of the Johnson administration’s Great Society programs of the 1960’s – his attempt to mimic soviet resettlement programs from villages to urban areas without grasping the vast differences in Russian and black human capital. (f) the attempt to educate different races that mature more or less, more quickly or more slowly, at the same age under the same conditions. Educate black and Hispanic men in what equates to military training and you will get good men out of it. You cannot ask humans in their youth to fight hormones that intense. Educating pliable Asians and less pliable and more physical whites at the same rates is equally destructive. We can start Asians and east Asians one to two years earlier than whites, and it’s arguable that we should provide two more years for Hispanics and three for blacks. It prevents schools from tailoring programs to the genetic needs of the children.
As a gentleman, I will try to refrain from chastising you for posing this question as a lie, in order to perpetuate a lie, for the purpose of causing people to believe a lie. But if lying on matters of public policy were punishable, you’d be incarcerated for this one.
We get nowhere by lying that we’re equally distributed. It’s liberal lies of equality that prevent us from developing institutions that support the needs of different genetic organisms, with different rates of maturity, different degrees of maturity, and different sizes of underclass.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
My job is to prevent lies in public discourse that prevent us from coming to compromises on policies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 15:09:00 UTC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Forms of Intellectual Property:
[T]rademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry. Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others. Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others. Worse, the reason we have so much (undesirable) that’s published in every medium, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral to issue copyrights. But this is a decision for groups through their political processes. They must just be aware of the consequences that will occur as monumental works decline and experiential works increase. I suggest that we retain a registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism). Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use. There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research. Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license. In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others. Further Thoughts I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others. This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Forms of Intellectual Property:
[T]rademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry. Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others. Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others. Worse, the reason we have so much (undesirable) that’s published in every medium, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral to issue copyrights. But this is a decision for groups through their political processes. They must just be aware of the consequences that will occur as monumental works decline and experiential works increase. I suggest that we retain a registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism). Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use. There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research. Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license. In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others. Further Thoughts I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others. This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
So I am tolerant of class signals, and merely intolerant of fallacy and disutility. Each class has it’s sacred cows. But they must be slain
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 10:43:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765499247114485761
But when you target compatibilism between multiple classes you must tolerate (humor or explain) the fantasy signals used within each class.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 10:42:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765498952678506496
Nope. There are dozens of papers that discuss the abuse of the system, and it’s uncontrolled growth through fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:56:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765351403695042561
Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765351188309172224
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/765351188309172224