Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • WHITE IDENTITY ARISES IN RESPONSE TO COLLECTIVE THREAT via: Patrick Smyth, Alain

    WHITE IDENTITY ARISES IN RESPONSE TO COLLECTIVE THREAT

    via: Patrick Smyth, Alain Dwight

    “In summary, at their origins the Goths were significantly ethnic–in the fourth century around 20-50 percent being a freemen class with at least a sense of Gothic identity if not biological kinship […]. However, group identity was most important under conditions of threat or expansion. After attaining dominance in Spain, this group identity tended to dissipate, replaced by a class-structured society where elites were composed of both Romans and Goths, with a great deal of intermarriage. Family strategizing related to social class became more important than group identity. This is a good example of the weakness of extended kinship bonds among Western peoples and the tendency to splinter in the absence of threat.”

    – Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 09:36:00 UTC

  • Do We Need to Be United?

    DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):

    1. Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.)
    2. Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.)

    This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).

  • Do We Need to Be United?

    DO WE NEED TO BE UNITED AROUND VIA-POSITIVAS (“SHOULD DO”)? AND SHOULD IT BE “ALL ABOUT RACE?”by John Mark September 26 at 10:39 AM (Answer to a couple of good questions.) [R]eciprocity is a via-negativa law (“you can’t do xyz”), not a via-positiva (“we must/should do abc”) though it can be expressed as a via-positiva (“we need to enforce reciprocity”). On the grassroots Right we all can agree on enforcing reciprocity. And yes the 10 commandments are expressions of property rights/reciprocity & again they’re mostly via-negativa (“don’t do”). And yes the brainwashing of our people is a factor for sure, but the simple concept of reciprocity cuts through a lot of that too. The via-positiva is where factions come in (e.g. Christians want to say “everyone should be a Christian” while non-christians say “no I don’t believe that”). The different via positivas are not a problem as long as we all agree on reciprocity. E.g. the Christians can go to church on Sunday & the non-christians can stay home, or a leader could be a Christian or not a Christian, and everything’s fine as long as nobody’s violating reciprocity. Agreeing on and enforcing reciprocity stops the via-positivas from hurting each other. On race, reciprocity also cuts through and clarifies that issue. It’s not “all about” race but at the same time race is a big factor in what is happening in the West. The simple fact is, 70% of nonwhites (men, women, all demographics of nonwhites) in America vote left (ir-reciprocity) and buy into the anti-white, anti-West narrative. Also, 30-40% of whites (largely single childless women) vote Left (ir-reciprocity). The only demographic that votes majority Right is white men and their wives. So the policy conclusions that we must implement out of practicality (not ill-will or “hate”) are (we have no choice):

    1. Stop all nonwhite immigration (because there is no way to vet them – “Are you a right-winger?” – they’ll just lie. And other problems – violations of reciprocity – that arise. Lower avg IQ, higher crime rate per capita, etc.)
    2. Limit the vote, no more full-franchise democracy. Women either don’t get to vote (cuz voting is proxy for violence & they don’t do violence), or only women with children get to vote, or women have a house of govt that must negotiate (not dictate), and is limited along with the other houses of govt, to reciprocity, by the judiciary. (Some men could be limited from voting too. There are different ways to effectively limit the vote to non-parasitic instinct groups.)

    This along with self-sorting after a separation would leave about 80% white & 20% nonwhite (mostly right-wing nonwhites) in red areas, which may be workable as long as there is no more nonwhite immigration. And the law/political system in red areas would be very robust with the combination of these demographic changes (masses of leftist nonwhites & leftist whites in big blue coastal cities no longer affecting our politics), limits on voting, and Propertarianism’s other law/policy/system recommendations. So race is a big issue statistically (in terms of group avg characteristics, attitudes, instincts & voting patterns), but at the same time it’s not “all about race”. We have to talk about race accurately and statistically and scientifically because this is part of the brainwashing the grassroots Right must abandon (the leftist lie that all people groups/races are or can be identical interchangeable widgets – as groups). And we Propertarians are in a great “sweet spot” to do that because we present a “let’s be accurate” and slightly academic vibe and we do not present an “ill-will/hate” vibe (while still being “muscular” – “we’re going to do what it takes to enforce reciprocity”).

  • Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways

    [T]here are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) Sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO? We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.

  • Why We Need to Peacefully Separate and Let Eachother Go Our Separate Ways

    [T]here are only a few directions the brain can evolve: 1) Neoteny (delay of maturity, retention of childlike features, giving more time for cognitive development). … a) developmental specialization (sense, physical, social, abstract), which for some reason we tend to vary in. … b) Prefrontal, cortical, inhibition (agency) – appears to be neotonic in origin. … c) Intelligence (I won’t get into that here) but there are many underlying variables including neocortical volume. The big 5/6 personality traits, and measured differences in brain volume and function can be described by these dimensions. 2) Sex: feminine and masculine, and this happens in early development. The differences in gender distributions of the big 5/6 (called ‘factors’, and their subfactors can be described by masculine and feminine differences, which are largely reduced to agreeableness, assertiveness, risk. We call these two resulting moral biases conservative (masculine pack) and liberal (feminine herd). And they reflect the different evolutionary strategies of males and females. Even so, all of us exist on a spectrum from the female mind to the male mind. There are pack (masculine minded) women, herd (feminine) minded men. Mental illness, anti social behavior, cognitive biases, moral intuition, use of language, vary consistently along this spectrum with very simple tests identifying the sex of the brain – regardless of sexual attraction, which is a developmental success or failure. One of the differences in cognitive biases between men and women is that men see differences and are slightly better at generalizing observations, and women the opposite at seeing similarity and individual empathy. This is our division of labor, and again – all of us are somewhere on this spectrum of masculine to feminine biases. And the cause of these differences is well understood, not only in hormones and developmental rehearsal of different biases, but in the structure of information processed in the brain, where one side (female) is language empathy and prey focused, and the other is action, objectivity, and predator focused. SO WHAT DO WE DO? We were speciating into regional human groups when we discovered farming. We were forced to compromise with each other during farming. Farming is over and we are now wealthy enough to pursue our genetic biases (interests, strategies) and so we must separate between masculine (suburban and rural hunters) and feminine (urban gatherers) and there is no reason not to. We are simply able to afford specialization. It’s time to return to speciation and stop fighting our instincts as different animals returning to speciation now that the agrarian era is over.

  • We (european men) must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing,

    We (european men) must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing, or hoping that other groups (including our own women) are like US.

    by John Mark [T]his mistake has plunged us into long dark ages before. Let’s not do it again. Let’s learn this lesson once and for all. WE ARE UNIQUE. === REGARDING === WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC

    1. The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.

    2. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.

    3. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.

    4. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.

    5. Propertarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.

    What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the greeks and the romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.

  • We (european men) must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing,

    We (european men) must stop making this mistake: we must stop thinking, wishing, or hoping that other groups (including our own women) are like US.

    by John Mark [T]his mistake has plunged us into long dark ages before. Let’s not do it again. Let’s learn this lesson once and for all. WE ARE UNIQUE. === REGARDING === WE ARE THE CONTINUATION OF THE EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONAL ARC

    1. The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.

    2. Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.

    3. Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.

    4. Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.

    5. Propertarians are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.

    What’s Next? We will only save ourselves, and mankind from another dark age if we do not make the mistakes of the greeks and the romans, and the monarchists – optimism that other men, are equal in ability and interest to european men.

  • Yarvin Version Two Part Three

    [Y]arvin and Rothbard and Rand are Jewish, Hoppe German, Doolittle anglo. I don’t expect change in visions of the future. Mises, Popper, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Doolittle, we solved social science in what, four generations? After how many centuries?

    —“Eric Danelaw well you’re cringe too then …. seriously tho how his is method of argument “jewish”? Also Hoppe is an ontological Liberal and Nick Land is too so they’re kinda silly”—Arrus Kacchi

    Really, what form of argument do Yarvin, Land, and Hoppe rely upon? Do they use Hindu mythical analogy, abrahamic theological, Jewish Critique, Confucian Reason, Continental Rational, German Phenomenological, Kantian Rational, Anglo Analytic, Anglo Ratio-empirical? They are just as different as theology, philosophy, law, and science. They are just as different as physics, chemistry, biology, and sentience. Does his suggested social order of ‘freedom’ reflect jewish diasporic, german free cities, Anglo Rule of Law, European National Socialism, Russian Oligarchical, or Chinese hierarchical oligarchy, or Hindu communal? I never disagree with nick, or curtis, or hans on criticism or goals – we all criticize using our cultural methods of analysis, we all propose solutions our culture is familiar with. Hoppe identified property as the unit of measure of social science, but not commons as necessary for survival of a polity able to produce the institution of property. Hayek worked thru economics then finally identified law and commons, and extended commons to information. I took hoppe and hayek (and popperian falsification and united them) and in my understanding, I completed the project of a system of measurement for the social and political sciences. Curtis identified the migration of the church state complex, to the military state industrial complex, to the academy, media, state complex. I identified the problems of law and economics. What is different about these findings? Yarvin “talk and belief” (jewish or truthfully, female ‘words and belief’), Hoppe morality as empirical (german moral, ‘intuitions and norms’), I identified the operational problem (finance, economics and law ‘actions’. ) All of us come from gene pools and cultures or subcultures and we cannot escape them. Because we are raised on moral foundations in families that persist moral foundations, and those moral foundations contain metaphysical paradigms, goods, bads, orders, rights and wrongs. This is why moral differences between cultures persist in the USA (and judaism and islam and christianity and every other religion) across generation. No one is immune. Just as you and I are not. The only way to increase your immunity is through comparative analysis of the techniques of different civilizations to produce different arguments with different objectives.

  • Yarvin Version Two Part Three

    [Y]arvin and Rothbard and Rand are Jewish, Hoppe German, Doolittle anglo. I don’t expect change in visions of the future. Mises, Popper, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Doolittle, we solved social science in what, four generations? After how many centuries?

    —“Eric Danelaw well you’re cringe too then …. seriously tho how his is method of argument “jewish”? Also Hoppe is an ontological Liberal and Nick Land is too so they’re kinda silly”—Arrus Kacchi

    Really, what form of argument do Yarvin, Land, and Hoppe rely upon? Do they use Hindu mythical analogy, abrahamic theological, Jewish Critique, Confucian Reason, Continental Rational, German Phenomenological, Kantian Rational, Anglo Analytic, Anglo Ratio-empirical? They are just as different as theology, philosophy, law, and science. They are just as different as physics, chemistry, biology, and sentience. Does his suggested social order of ‘freedom’ reflect jewish diasporic, german free cities, Anglo Rule of Law, European National Socialism, Russian Oligarchical, or Chinese hierarchical oligarchy, or Hindu communal? I never disagree with nick, or curtis, or hans on criticism or goals – we all criticize using our cultural methods of analysis, we all propose solutions our culture is familiar with. Hoppe identified property as the unit of measure of social science, but not commons as necessary for survival of a polity able to produce the institution of property. Hayek worked thru economics then finally identified law and commons, and extended commons to information. I took hoppe and hayek (and popperian falsification and united them) and in my understanding, I completed the project of a system of measurement for the social and political sciences. Curtis identified the migration of the church state complex, to the military state industrial complex, to the academy, media, state complex. I identified the problems of law and economics. What is different about these findings? Yarvin “talk and belief” (jewish or truthfully, female ‘words and belief’), Hoppe morality as empirical (german moral, ‘intuitions and norms’), I identified the operational problem (finance, economics and law ‘actions’. ) All of us come from gene pools and cultures or subcultures and we cannot escape them. Because we are raised on moral foundations in families that persist moral foundations, and those moral foundations contain metaphysical paradigms, goods, bads, orders, rights and wrongs. This is why moral differences between cultures persist in the USA (and judaism and islam and christianity and every other religion) across generation. No one is immune. Just as you and I are not. The only way to increase your immunity is through comparative analysis of the techniques of different civilizations to produce different arguments with different objectives.

  • I don’t want to be the front man on this subject but he’s not trying to take dow

    I don’t want to be the front man on this subject but he’s not trying to take down psychology, he’s trying to justify arab immigration to the west, and satisfy the chip on his shoulder as a christian arab. His empirical work was a dead end, and he can’t tolerate the truth: Trust.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 15:10:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179775691165962241

    Reply addressees: @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179562851305848832

    IN REPLY TO:

    @clairlemon

    Taleb, like Gould, is trying to demonise mainstream psychology–but he’s only successful in creating a folk demon for the lay public. He knows that anyone with any technical expertise thinks he’s a clown. But he doesn’t care, because accuracy is less important to him than fame.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179562851305848832