Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • THE TRUTH ABOUT UKRAINE, RUSSIA, AND THE WEST (important – unification of the ci

    THE TRUTH ABOUT UKRAINE, RUSSIA, AND THE WEST

    (important – unification of the circumpolar people)

    —“Soros, the CIA, Europeans, etc) funded Maidan, something the nationalists like to forget.”— (A Friend)

    Um. Yeah. Soros needs to be killed or imprisoned and his assets seized and returned to the Bank of England.

    But then while he invested in Ukraine. So did the USA. So did every bordering country. And Russia heavily invested in Ukraine as well – although at competing purposes.

    More importantly, so did most of the oligarchs out of self-defense under the (correct belief) that the then-president, by rejecting European membership, was close enough to Moscow, and had so successfully impoverished the military, the reunification with Russia at the expense of the oligarchs was in the near future, and would lead to government’s power to TAKE from them, rather than a unification with Europe which would make more of them even richer, and require governments NEGOTIATE with them.

    And while I realize I am better informed, and have a greater understanding of the circumstances, it does not take a rocket scientist with a great deal of knowledge to grasp that the people who organized Maidan and put Poroshenko in power were the Oligarchs, and that the foreign investment merely provided them with a discount and political cover.

    Everyone even vaguely connected to every intelligence service, or their private sector NGO’s, or those of us who have understanding of both know this. But *ALL* the media organizations in Ukraine, (just like the USA) are controlled by the Oligarchs. And worse, MORAL NARRATIVES are appealing to eastern Europeans even more so than they are appealing to western Europeans – they are a less empirical people.

    The People Of Ukraine wanted European Membership like their Polish Cousins and Neighbors. The only people who didn’t were a minority in the east whose incomes were dependent upon the remnants of the Russian military manufacturing sector, the miners who and pensioners who would receive greater redistributions from Moscow than kiev, and the (dominant faction) of gangsters in Russified Donbas basin, who understood the impact of European integration on their organized crime, and the families, friends, and business dependents in Crimea where the large Russian military presence drove the economy.

    You can tell a Russian argument simply by the fact that he will posit a false moral equivalency rather than an economic interest.

    I know this technique is as endemic to Russian culture as it is to Jewish. But as an anglo empiricist I am immune. Everyone acts in the material (economic) and therefore reproductive interests in matters political. So we anglos argue in long-term incentives in favor of individual family, and collective gains and losses, not moralisms in favor of collectivist and short-term moral equivalency.

    Putin says the difference between Russia and the west less precisely but makes the same point. The difference is that Russians feel vulnerable and ‘behind’, and so they favor the collective at all times, and argue moral equivalency to justify it. Wealthy westerners are not insecure so they argue empirically for the interests of individuals and families. Westerners argue empirically and security for a luxury, while Russians argue justificationally out of vulnerability and insecurity.

    It would be better if we both argued truthfully, trying to make Russia secure, and the west less suicidal and more interested in defending our civilization via the collective and family than the luxury of the interests of the individual over the family, tribe, nation, and civilization.

    The answer is out there in front of us. We must have the knowledge to understand it, and the courage to work together to solve it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of (The West) Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-23 10:52:00 UTC

  • “What’s touched me most about Ukrainians, is that they don’t seem to be a self-p

    —“What’s touched me most about Ukrainians, is that they don’t seem to be a self-pitying people. They have a quiet dignity that is more understated than that of the English, but still present.”–Dmitry Chernov

    Dmitry put into words what I wasn’t able to. Beautiful. True.

    That is why I love them I think.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-23 09:42:00 UTC

  • Bit Of Criticism Of the Pseudoscience of Hindu Origin Myths

    https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-actual-Aryans-Europeans-Iranians-or-Indians/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=432b3295A Bit Of Criticism Of the Pseudoscience of Hindu Origin Myths.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-21 13:32:00 UTC

  • (Like Eli I am increasingly comfortable with market-fascism. In other words, imp

    (Like Eli I am increasingly comfortable with market-fascism. In other words, imposing the eugenic market on others in defense of kith, kin, and self. Tolerance is a failed experiment. We must rule, force rule by our betters, or be ruled and the victim of genocide by our inferiors. In other words, they have aggressed against us, not sought to meet us on aristocratic common ground.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-21 09:40:00 UTC

  • Who Are The Actual Aryans – Europeans, Iranians Or Indians?

    You know, there is a reason that despite their numbers, Indians have a problem publishing scientific papers that survive criticism and obtain citation. And this debate is one of them.

    The genetic record is pretty clear that the people north of the black sea combined horse, wheel, and bronze, to spread east and west. This technology was as impossible to resist as later generations faced armored cavalry, longbow-archers, machine-guns, tanks, and ballistic missiles.

    Rule by taxation is extremely profitable. So there were wars for control but no mass killings. In every region from Spain to China this led to rule and gradual integration.

    Over the centuries, distinct civilizations formed as these invaders adapted to local economy and custom. Northern european(celto-germanic), southern european(mediterranean/baltic), eastern european(slavic), Byzantine, Iranian, Vedic, and the steppe peoples who appear an admixture. With competitors pressing Europeans to west of the Urals and north of the mediterranean. And the slow pre-speciation that we call ‘race’ and ‘tribe’ developed fairly distinct but similar morphological differences. With Whites being most successful at pedomorphic evolution (for some reason we do not yet fully understand) and only Whites and Chinese successful at using manorialism and law for eugenic evolution (suppression of reproduction of the underclasses).

    India is a vast continent with vast resources, but was first truncated by the mongols, then the muslims, and finally the British, and was unable, as was china to successfully hold off invaders by the centralization of power into a military and institutional system.

    White Americans likewise are demonstrating this same behavior by failing to resist conquest domestically. It is not unusual for indo europeans to be displaced by people from the steppe.

    In fact, if history tells us anything, it is that the steppe breeds for aggression which indo europeans fail to counter.

    My ‘suggestion’ to hindus is that the same reason the culture has been repeatedly conquered by outsiders, is the same reason the country demonstrates poverty, and the same reason we see this kind of pseudoscientific argument on places like Quora:

    Look in the mirror. Because the problem is YOU.

    We are out-gunned, out-germ’ed, out=steel’ed, out bred, out-religion’ed, for a reason.

    Because we are are weak. Evolution is not forgiving. If we fail it is not because others are better, it is because we are not good enough to resist them.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-actual-Aryans-Europeans-Iranians-or-Indians

  • Who Are The Actual Aryans – Europeans, Iranians Or Indians?

    You know, there is a reason that despite their numbers, Indians have a problem publishing scientific papers that survive criticism and obtain citation. And this debate is one of them.

    The genetic record is pretty clear that the people north of the black sea combined horse, wheel, and bronze, to spread east and west. This technology was as impossible to resist as later generations faced armored cavalry, longbow-archers, machine-guns, tanks, and ballistic missiles.

    Rule by taxation is extremely profitable. So there were wars for control but no mass killings. In every region from Spain to China this led to rule and gradual integration.

    Over the centuries, distinct civilizations formed as these invaders adapted to local economy and custom. Northern european(celto-germanic), southern european(mediterranean/baltic), eastern european(slavic), Byzantine, Iranian, Vedic, and the steppe peoples who appear an admixture. With competitors pressing Europeans to west of the Urals and north of the mediterranean. And the slow pre-speciation that we call ‘race’ and ‘tribe’ developed fairly distinct but similar morphological differences. With Whites being most successful at pedomorphic evolution (for some reason we do not yet fully understand) and only Whites and Chinese successful at using manorialism and law for eugenic evolution (suppression of reproduction of the underclasses).

    India is a vast continent with vast resources, but was first truncated by the mongols, then the muslims, and finally the British, and was unable, as was china to successfully hold off invaders by the centralization of power into a military and institutional system.

    White Americans likewise are demonstrating this same behavior by failing to resist conquest domestically. It is not unusual for indo europeans to be displaced by people from the steppe.

    In fact, if history tells us anything, it is that the steppe breeds for aggression which indo europeans fail to counter.

    My ‘suggestion’ to hindus is that the same reason the culture has been repeatedly conquered by outsiders, is the same reason the country demonstrates poverty, and the same reason we see this kind of pseudoscientific argument on places like Quora:

    Look in the mirror. Because the problem is YOU.

    We are out-gunned, out-germ’ed, out=steel’ed, out bred, out-religion’ed, for a reason.

    Because we are are weak. Evolution is not forgiving. If we fail it is not because others are better, it is because we are not good enough to resist them.

    https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-actual-Aryans-Europeans-Iranians-or-Indians

  • NORTHWEST / CANADIAN / AUSTRALIAN “PRIVILEGE” We (Washingtonians) have the luxur

    NORTHWEST / CANADIAN / AUSTRALIAN “PRIVILEGE”

    We (Washingtonians) have the luxury of:

    (a) we remain on the frontier. Frontiers demonstrate borderland ethics.

    (b) never having had underclass relocation (we never had the ‘black’ problem, or the ‘catholic’ problem, or the ‘jewish’ problem and never had the ‘puerto rican’ problem, or the more recent ‘carribean problem’. And we don’t yet have the hindu/muslim problem. And we are not sure that the mexican problem is all that much of a problem.

    (c) we had an initial scandinavian-dominant (protestant) population

    (d) we had only two industries; Aviation and Technology and now Bio/Medical (although boston is still the center), and the dominance of the classes that arrived for those industries.

    (e) the ‘hippie’ flight during the 60’s that sent the yuppies to seattle and the hippies to portland.

    We are, like the nordics of europe, simply privileged by a lack of competitors on our territory.

    I leave the self congratulation to Canadians and Austrialians, both of whom, like north-westerners, are beneficiaries of circumstance, who claim intentional high mindedness rather than simply inheriting the privilege of (a) whiteness and (b) remoteness)

    As the princess said: “never confuse convenience with conviction, nor inheritance with achievement.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 12:11:00 UTC

  • “This is a problem of extending in group loyalty to all humans. Human genes are

    —“This is a problem of extending in group loyalty to all humans. Human genes are only valuable should they be closely related to your own or at least not destructive to your own.

    As an emotionally relatable example the cockroach works well. I kill the roach not because I hate the roach, I kill it not for the sake of killing but because it poses some danger to me. I kill the rabbits in my garden not for any hatred of rabbits but because they are destructive to my ends. I kill the deer not because I enjoy hurting it but because it is made of food.

    But when we get to those who posses human genes or even humanish form (dicks out for Harambe) there is something in the human mind, whether genetic or memetic I’m not sure, that is repulsed by killing. It may be that this trait was adaptive in that any costs imposed on me by others are less than the costs imposed by the results of humans not being repulsed by killing other humans, even those unrelated to them.”— Ben B. Rodríguez

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:32:00 UTC

  • Morals Reflect Genetic Distance

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.

  • Morals Reflect Genetic Distance

    MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

    There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.