Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • Are There Any Benefits To Being White In American Society?

    There are worldwide benefits to being white, for the simple reason that we are less suspect of malfeasance because in reality other than the japanese we are statistically less likely to engage in malfeasance. This has largely to do with the fact that we have self-domesticated ourselves over 4000 years if not 20000 years, by the aggressive suppression of behaviors that cannot be suppressed in other territories and climates. In other words, stereotypes are extremely accurate predictors – the most accurate predictors in the social sciences. Only americans deny that for some reason.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-benefits-to-being-white-in-American-society

  • Why Is It That Iranian Americans Make More Than Double Income Per Capita Than Iraqi Americans?

    There are some questions that you should not ask because they produce answers you will not like. It is my job to answer uncomfortable questions so I’ll give you the respect of the correct answer, if you’ll respect that it might be unpleasant.

    We were horrified by the Galilean Revolution but we adapted to it anyway. In the west we were horrified by the Darwinian Revolution. But we adapted to it anyway. We were somewhat horrified by the consequences of industrialization but we adapted to it anyway. So some knowledge must be adapted to if we want to prosper.

    Persians divided from common ancestors with Europeans a long time ago, but are the ethnic group closest to West Eurasians (Europeans) – They integrate well, tend toward professional occupations, and demonstrate relatively high trust versus their other levantine neighbors. They have an extraordinary history of intelligence and scholarship despite the destruction to their civilization, language, culture, and demographics by the Arab conquest. So they are ‘compatible’ with American Civilization.

    Persians, like the Ashkenazi, are high performance ethnic group. They will do better in any country no matter where they go. The Indians and Chinese start with very large populations, and their best talent travels the world. They are consistently high performers. The difference is that Persians and Ashkenazi produce asymmetric success despite their small numbers.

    Some groups consist largely of the upper genetic classes, some the middle, and some the lower. Economic, scientific, and artistic performance corresponds directly with the demographic constitution of an ethnic group. So no matter what anyone does, the fact that some ethnic groups consist almost exclusively of the genetic middle and upper classes means that they will always statistically outperform those groups with large underclasses. It’s just math.

    So the differences in performances of ethnic groups is not so much due to genetic differences between groups but the scale of the underclass and the drag that the underclasses put on language, culture, institutions, and knowledge.

    The problem that produces inequality isn’t race, or ethnicity, it’s class. Some groups have vast underclasses, and some have nearly eliminated them.

    The Arab conquest was the most catastrophic event in human history, destroying the four great civilizations of the ancient world, causing 500M dead, and creating a 1400 year dark age from which only a remote corner of northern europe was able to rescue the world from.

    And the side effect of that civilization was a rapid expansion of the size of the underclass due to the inability to develop a middle class, due to low trust, due to tribalism. Outbreeding with the slaves didn’t help much either. It just made it worse.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-Iranian-Americans-make-more-than-double-income-per-capita-than-Iraqi-Americans

  • Are There Any Benefits To Being White In American Society?

    There are worldwide benefits to being white, for the simple reason that we are less suspect of malfeasance because in reality other than the japanese we are statistically less likely to engage in malfeasance. This has largely to do with the fact that we have self-domesticated ourselves over 4000 years if not 20000 years, by the aggressive suppression of behaviors that cannot be suppressed in other territories and climates. In other words, stereotypes are extremely accurate predictors – the most accurate predictors in the social sciences. Only americans deny that for some reason.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-benefits-to-being-white-in-American-society

  • High IQ disaporics are diasporic because they could not develop institutions by

    High IQ disaporics are diasporic because they could not develop institutions by which to hold land (and made genocide against their southern neighbors who produced iron), and had to specialize in very different skills, as did ancestor females who were portable between male groups

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 20:57:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975476381479047172

    Reply addressees: @hbdchick @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975475627376693248

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @hbdchick @TOOEdit The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975475627376693248

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @hbdchick @TOOEdit The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975475627376693248

  • The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, a

    The low IQ Gypsies specialize in mobility, low level parasitism and predation, and punishing members for honest labor. Agrarians had to develop norms, traditions, traits that allowed them to hold territory. Pastoralists never produced commons, and retained their clannishness.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 20:54:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975475627376693248

    Reply addressees: @hbdchick @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975475072461832198

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @hbdchick @TOOEdit There are only three possible means of human coercion: violence, remuneration(payment), and undermining (gossip). ie: Established males, ascendent males, and females. We are very artful in combining them. But still specialize.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975475072461832198

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @hbdchick @TOOEdit There are only three possible means of human coercion: violence, remuneration(payment), and undermining (gossip). ie: Established males, ascendent males, and females. We are very artful in combining them. But still specialize.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975475072461832198

  • Could You Possibly Clarify Your Position on ‘Racism’?

    –“Hey Curt could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

    OK. Let’s try.

    —“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

    Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

    —“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

    Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

    —“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

    Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

    —“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

    I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other. Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically. If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands. The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people. So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

    –“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

    Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I don’t know how to answer that question. You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns. But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon. The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race. Thanks brother 😉

  • Could You Possibly Clarify Your Position on ‘Racism’?

    –“Hey Curt could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

    OK. Let’s try.

    —“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

    Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

    —“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

    Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

    —“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

    Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

    —“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

    I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other. Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically. If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands. The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people. So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

    –“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

    Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I don’t know how to answer that question. You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns. But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon. The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race. Thanks brother 😉

  • “Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m tryin

    –“Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively understand a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read;”—

    OK. Let’s try.

    —“”Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that.”—-

    Yes. But then again, it’s EXPENSIVE to do that, and our prejudices are statistically accurate. So the problem is ignoring signals of reciprocity and assuming the worst, not blanket investment in every individual. Humans are books that are judgeable by the condition of our covers, not the shape.

    —“And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood.”—

    Yes, because my job is answering the difficult political questions of the era. That said, there are definitely fairly substantial differences in verbal ability, but not comprehension. I think I know why that is but science will have to discover whether I”m right or not.

    —“However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here.”—-

    Well, this is because (a) people demonstrate kin selection and are happy to redistribute to non-competitors (kin). (b) Because an homogenous redistributive polity under rule of law by reciprocity has the greatest chance of producing a competitive intergenerational standard of living, and the least incentives for the bad things in politics. In other words, I am advocating a via-negativa of eliminating all obstacles to optimum cooperation. And because (c) exporting your kin’s cost on others makes people angry (except those that oppose the status quo and want non-kin allies to undermine it.)

    —“So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector?”—

    I am not sure I understand the question. Political race realism is just science. People except at the margins select their own, and even among close friends we usually select with in six degrees or so. So we get nordic countries and japan on one hand and brazil and india on the other.

    Now, Interpersonal racism in the sense that you blanket dismiss people because of race is just unscientific and if consequential I feel it’s questionably moral. I tend to be pretty race blind in my friends, but my close friends, and my sexual relations are all absurdly close genetically.

    If I have friends from other races that I care deeply for (and I do), then that is very different from saying that i would want them to marry into my kin group, or my kin group marry into theirs, or even that we live in each other’s lands.

    The reality is that our upper classes are fine because they do not need kin groups and kin norms. But the lower the classes the more so the need, so that cost is immoral to impose on another people.

    So the material issue is transfer of other than a small number of elites who have no kin group affiliations in one another’s countries that may cause competition with the host people, and therefore limit their opportunity to preserve rule of law, markets in everything, and heavy redistribution (kin selection). Commons are as disproportionately productive as is cooperation between individuals and groups. It’s ridiculous. So kin=commons=wealth.

    –“And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close?”—

    Well there are not ‘shoulds’ in preferences. There are goods in politics, and there are necessities in group competitive strategy. So I dn’t know how to answer that question.

    You should prefer kin groups because the result produces optimum common goods the same way you should prefer moderate taxes because they produce high returns, the same way you should prefer the high cost of marriage because of those returns.

    But you know, time horizons are a family and clan objective, and the purpose of individualism was to destroy that time horizon.

    The underclasses have had a war against the better classes for millennia. This is just the most current attempt to destroy aristocratic families. This time they’re trying to end the whole race.

    Thanks brother 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 20:45:00 UTC

  • (a) It’s actually High-Trust/Male/Agrarian vs Low-Trust/Female/Pastoral. (b) Not

    (a) It’s actually High-Trust/Male/Agrarian vs Low-Trust/Female/Pastoral.
    (b) Not sure genetic vs cultural, but as you’ve advocated it appears much more genetic.
    (c) I’m pretty sure that major group differences are pedomorphism/neoteny + size of underclass + gender endocrine bias

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 20:40:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975471931033047040

    Reply addressees: @hbdchick @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974642027349635072

    IN REPLY TO:

    @hbdchick

    my guess/prediction/bet: alt-right types who accept @TOOEdit’s theory about jews having a group evolutionary strategy tend to come from pops with particularistic (“clannish”) moral systems. #CognitiveBiases #EyeOfBeholder #HumanAllTooHuman

    (for god’s sake, don’t @ me!)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974642027349635072

  • Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying

    Hey Eric could you possibly clarify for me your position on ‘racism’? I’m trying to cohesively conceptualise a few different bits and pieces of yours that i’ve read; “Racism’ is naive” – If you mean forming an individual judgement of a person not by their individual characteristics, but simply by their race, then sure… I get that. And you have also said that the proper way to understand the difference between the races is the size of the underclasses, that the aristocracy of each race is generally fairly ‘equal’ and that each race has the same ability to transcend (improve it’s average IQ?) through eugenic practices… ok, 100% understood. However you also seem to advocate (correct me if i’m wrong) that a polity should be based around kin, where the aristocracy ‘domesticates’ the lower classes, in a vertical structure, based on race. So you seem to be anti cosmopolitan here. So, how does ‘anti-multiculturalism’, or anti ethic mixing… resolve with racism being naive? And what is the value of focusing on kin as a group selector? And also, I understand that different groups simply evolved different average characteristics, but should we have a preference for particular groups based on the average prevalence of characteristics or temperaments that we value… is this not a form or ‘racism’, or at least getting very close? Thanks brother 😉