–“race is a lousy proxy for violence”–
[T]his is empirically false in every walk of life. The reason being that the different tribes within each race have been asymmetrically successful in genetic pacification, with westerners the most successful, followed by the Japanese and Chinese. So empirically race IS an empirical signal of criminality. (Hence “The Talk”.)
In criminality – roughly speaking impulsivity and aggression and IQ determine potential criminality, although with increases in IQ, the impulsive and the aggressive merely change tactics from physical, to deceitful, to conspiratorial. In the market for goods and services all people are the color of money – although different populations are of higher risk and cost than others because of genetic pacification.
In politics people act as competing and hostile blocks each seeking higher status and privilege. This is a universally demonstrable practice since status signaling and self perception of status is the innate accounting system of mankind.
So in the market for goods and services, it is irrational to treat an individual by the properties of his class or race , and conversely it is rational in politics and social science to treat a class or race by the properties of its individuals. Because individuals act as blocks in politics. That’s the domain of politics. Just as individuals act as individuals in the market. That is the domain of the market.
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an excuse for taking discounts, just as socialism is an excuse for involuntary transfer and dysgenic reproduction. Just as neo-conservatism is an excuse for forcing costs of expansion and conquest upon others.
There are no free rides. The only liberty possible is constructed by reciprocal insurance against parasitism by the promise of organized violence to suppress it, thereby forcing all humans into the market for production distribution and trade, and forcing all humans to save for their unproductive years.
**Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only know means of constructing liberty.**
NO MORE LIES. THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(a) people act as racial blocks to obtain power over other people – this is in their interests. (b) minorities largely are irrelevant as long as they cannot obtain political power – ie: democracy – and live within their ‘quarters’ (neighborhoods); (c) the origin of friction is not race it is the value of in-group vs out-group status signals and differences in cultural rules that suppress different degrees of parasitism: normative incommensurability; (d) where the problem of conflict is not culture it is desirability for reproduction and therefore status signals in group vs out group; (e) where the problem is not desirability it is impulsivity, and the consequences of impulsivity (spontaneous, loud, rude, crude, violent), which hinders cooperation between less impulsive and more impulsive groups.
It’s irrational to seek to overcome these frictions. In otherwords, it is not rational to expect people to behave otherwise to competitiors in those cases where they are in fact competitors not cooperators.
Genetic culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) matters. That is bcause conflict is largely a problem OF CLASS and CULTURE not of race. The problem is the distribution of numbers between the classes between the races. if you see upper and middle class people of various colors in the same room they are still more positive and trusting to in-group members, but they cause fewer political problems with outgroup members.
All groups reject out-group competitors. Whether within race or without. Upper class whites (me) don’t like to spend too much time with lower class whites. They like it even less with lower classes of other groups over whom they have no signaling value to exchange to moderate conflicts.s
I am keenly aware when traveling, or doing business, or participating in intellectual forums, when I am the white minority, and how people treat me, just as anyone else is. In Hartford (which is a black city) I felt it. For many years I worked in predominantly jewish companies and felt it. In academia I feel an outlier. In business I feel an outlier. We all feel kin selection unless we are privileged by circumstance, and in peer classes.
Hence the only way to avoid racism is to homogenize the classes and cultures such that racial signals are neither valuable nor detrimental.
We can tolerate racial mixture (it merely affects reproductive desirability). We can tolerate some class mixture within the same group. But mixing race, culture and class differences is more cross group competition for individuals in each group to rationally choose egalitarianism.
As an intellectual I prefer to judge people only on intellectual and moral merits. As member of my family and tribe I place greater value on the perpetuation, improvement and expansion of of mine than that of others. As a business man, I prefer to see everyone as equal in potential to generate wealth. As a politician I am keenly aware that internal conflict and competition are constraints upon in-group status signals (harmony), economic prosperity, the construction of commons, and the competitive success of the group is predicated on the least diverse, most
If groups are not willing to practice culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) then they are merely lying when they say they want equality – what they want is to win, and to weaken their competitors through appeal via suggestion to pathological altruism.
So from this perspective, racists are not the problem. The failure of groups to genetically pacify their underclasses is the challenge to overcome.
Anyway, that is where I end up today.
I have seen the change in american in my lifetime, and it is tragic. I am sitting here in Estonia and I see the damage done by the Russians and that the Russians constitute the lower (trailer park) classes. I can see in Sweden, Denmark, England and Norway that they have no intellectual recollection of their history of genetic pacification and therefore do not appreciate the suicide mission they are engaging in. The Chinese are perfectly aware of it. The were just less successful than the west because of their large numbers. THe hindus use class. The Brazillians have been most successful in the opposite: elimination of racism, interbreeding. And that has resulted in recreating the caste and poverty of india.
There are only three choices: hindu castes bcause of genetic diversity, aristocratic equality through genetic pacification, or asian tyranny to force homogeniety of behavior.
As usual, I would say that complaints about out-groups are admissions of in-group failure to resist competition from the range of strategies of others.
Curt
Frank CastleIn an effort to make things safe and fair we perpetuate/exacerbate weakness and flaws. Thereby creating a system in which we need more government intervention to maintain safety and fairness. All the while creating more problems increasing the need for more and more government. We truly need a new system.
Are there only 3 choices?
Eli HarmanOne reason the lower classes are racist is that they are in direct competition for resources they don’t create: jobs, handouts, etc… the middle and upper classes don’t have to argue about who gets how much pie. They can make pie.
Lou Kiss. Correct me if I’m wrong. One cannot change one’s race, but one can change one’s class for better or worse. What it takes is examination of conscience and revision of behaviour. Hence, we all have the potential to rise up to moral aristocracy but the individual must do it for himself.
(a) people act as racial blocks to obtain power over other people – this is in their interests. (b) minorities largely are irrelevant as long as they cannot obtain political power – ie: democracy – and live within their ‘quarters’ (neighborhoods); (c) the origin of friction is not race it is the value of in-group vs out-group status signals and differences in cultural rules that suppress different degrees of parasitism: normative incommensurability; (d) where the problem of conflict is not culture it is desirability for reproduction and therefore status signals in group vs out group; (e) where the problem is not desirability it is impulsivity, and the consequences of impulsivity (spontaneous, loud, rude, crude, violent), which hinders cooperation between less impulsive and more impulsive groups.
It’s irrational to seek to overcome these frictions. In otherwords, it is not rational to expect people to behave otherwise to competitiors in those cases where they are in fact competitors not cooperators.
Genetic culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) matters. That is bcause conflict is largely a problem OF CLASS and CULTURE not of race. The problem is the distribution of numbers between the classes between the races. if you see upper and middle class people of various colors in the same room they are still more positive and trusting to in-group members, but they cause fewer political problems with outgroup members.
All groups reject out-group competitors. Whether within race or without. Upper class whites (me) don’t like to spend too much time with lower class whites. They like it even less with lower classes of other groups over whom they have no signaling value to exchange to moderate conflicts.s
I am keenly aware when traveling, or doing business, or participating in intellectual forums, when I am the white minority, and how people treat me, just as anyone else is. In Hartford (which is a black city) I felt it. For many years I worked in predominantly jewish companies and felt it. In academia I feel an outlier. In business I feel an outlier. We all feel kin selection unless we are privileged by circumstance, and in peer classes.
Hence the only way to avoid racism is to homogenize the classes and cultures such that racial signals are neither valuable nor detrimental.
We can tolerate racial mixture (it merely affects reproductive desirability). We can tolerate some class mixture within the same group. But mixing race, culture and class differences is more cross group competition for individuals in each group to rationally choose egalitarianism.
As an intellectual I prefer to judge people only on intellectual and moral merits. As member of my family and tribe I place greater value on the perpetuation, improvement and expansion of of mine than that of others. As a business man, I prefer to see everyone as equal in potential to generate wealth. As a politician I am keenly aware that internal conflict and competition are constraints upon in-group status signals (harmony), economic prosperity, the construction of commons, and the competitive success of the group is predicated on the least diverse, most
If groups are not willing to practice culling (genetic pacification, eugenic reproduction) then they are merely lying when they say they want equality – what they want is to win, and to weaken their competitors through appeal via suggestion to pathological altruism.
So from this perspective, racists are not the problem. The failure of groups to genetically pacify their underclasses is the challenge to overcome.
Anyway, that is where I end up today.
I have seen the change in american in my lifetime, and it is tragic. I am sitting here in Estonia and I see the damage done by the Russians and that the Russians constitute the lower (trailer park) classes. I can see in Sweden, Denmark, England and Norway that they have no intellectual recollection of their history of genetic pacification and therefore do not appreciate the suicide mission they are engaging in. The Chinese are perfectly aware of it. The were just less successful than the west because of their large numbers. THe hindus use class. The Brazillians have been most successful in the opposite: elimination of racism, interbreeding. And that has resulted in recreating the caste and poverty of india.
There are only three choices: hindu castes bcause of genetic diversity, aristocratic equality through genetic pacification, or asian tyranny to force homogeniety of behavior.
As usual, I would say that complaints about out-groups are admissions of in-group failure to resist competition from the range of strategies of others.
Curt
Frank CastleIn an effort to make things safe and fair we perpetuate/exacerbate weakness and flaws. Thereby creating a system in which we need more government intervention to maintain safety and fairness. All the while creating more problems increasing the need for more and more government. We truly need a new system.
Are there only 3 choices?
Eli HarmanOne reason the lower classes are racist is that they are in direct competition for resources they don’t create: jobs, handouts, etc… the middle and upper classes don’t have to argue about who gets how much pie. They can make pie.
Lou Kiss. Correct me if I’m wrong. One cannot change one’s race, but one can change one’s class for better or worse. What it takes is examination of conscience and revision of behaviour. Hence, we all have the potential to rise up to moral aristocracy but the individual must do it for himself.
[E]urope ended at the Sahara. Now Africa ends at the Alps. Soon it will end at the North sea.
It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that the Arab Conquest of north Africa was as great a tragedy as the Arab Conquest of byzantium, and the Arab conquest of Persia.
It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that our efforts at colonization were mixed – where we ruled it added net value, where we exploited it was a criminal theft.
I reject colonialism, but I do not reject rule. The construction of commons and social order are the providence of peoples. The construction of moral order is merely a scientific and absolute truth. Rule = Law. Governance = Contract. Contract=Commons. Commons=Group Strategy. Group Strategy=Group Persistence. Group Persistence=Universal Goal.
Conquest doesn’t stop any more than evolution. Someone will conquer. We must always choose the least bad choice. The least bad means of conquest is Rule.
Rule of law is a moral universal. There is no exception to this rule. Without it we do not cooperate we prey upon one another.
Save Christendom. We cleaned Europe of the Moors. Time to do it again.
Export jurists. Move justice to people not people to justice.
Move capital to people, not people to capital.
We are the only truth tellers.
Spread the truth.
Prosperity will follow.
[E]urope ended at the Sahara. Now Africa ends at the Alps. Soon it will end at the North sea.
It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that the Arab Conquest of north Africa was as great a tragedy as the Arab Conquest of byzantium, and the Arab conquest of Persia.
It doesn’t take great wisdom to see that our efforts at colonization were mixed – where we ruled it added net value, where we exploited it was a criminal theft.
I reject colonialism, but I do not reject rule. The construction of commons and social order are the providence of peoples. The construction of moral order is merely a scientific and absolute truth. Rule = Law. Governance = Contract. Contract=Commons. Commons=Group Strategy. Group Strategy=Group Persistence. Group Persistence=Universal Goal.
Conquest doesn’t stop any more than evolution. Someone will conquer. We must always choose the least bad choice. The least bad means of conquest is Rule.
Rule of law is a moral universal. There is no exception to this rule. Without it we do not cooperate we prey upon one another.
Save Christendom. We cleaned Europe of the Moors. Time to do it again.
Export jurists. Move justice to people not people to justice.
Move capital to people, not people to capital.
We are the only truth tellers.
Spread the truth.
Prosperity will follow.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/08/america_takes_o.htmlUnfortunately, no other culture, even the catholic states, approaches protestant high trust (and therefore economic velocity). We have genetically pacified northern Europe aggressively for a millennium, practiced delayed reproduction an eugenic mating for just as long, and pacified through eugenic manorialism less so for millennia before that.
Cultures can adopt technology, but it has yet to be seen if anyone can adopt high trust. Truth telling, and even the very concept of it, much less contractual adherence, diminish very, very rapidly, and corruption increases very rapidly outside of the Hanjal line.
I don’t see much reason for optimism. We have a very poor record of spreading truth telling and trust, even if we have a great record of spreading money, accounting, banking, interest, and consumer capitalism.
Other cultures wear our clothes, eat our food, listen to our music, watch their movies, and employ our technology. But they remain familial, inbred, tribal, corrupt, and unpacified.
The western miracle was caused by our accidental discovery of truth. From that discovery all of consequence was derived. Without that, little of consequence will be constructed.
Our frequent self congratulation is merely signaling and hubris. We should leave the brits to specialize in it. They’re better at it. 😉
Q&A: BOOSTING OUR SPIRITS: LOVE YOUR CIVILIZATION, YOUR KIN, AND REPRODUCE YOUR KIN, AND WE WILL WIN
—“Curt: Maybe I’m wrong; maybe I misread it; maybe you aren’t so in favor of the continuation of violent types as have come from my family,”—
I am trying to RESTORE violence to political discourse. When I talk about genetic pacification I’m criticizing IMPULSIVITY not violence. I want men to be violent in the suppression of free-riders, criminals, usurpers and invaders. A warrior, a sheriff, and judge and a king use violence for good. A free-rider, criminal, usurper and invader use it for parasitism. Violence is neither good or bad, it is merely put to good or bad ends. If we abandon violence then we cannot put it to good ends – and we need to.
—“…but you have restored pride and a sense of urgency in me to keep the traditional European family alive. I know my mother, and aunts, and uncles would love to shake your hand for doing that to me, as they long considered me a lost cause, a man “too smart for his own good,” but you have in some ways circled me back home.”—
Well you made my day if not my week. Thank you. Because that is what I want to do. Restore moral authority and intellectual credibility to our aristocratic political system. But the fact that I influenced your life a bit is the best feeling I can hope for.
—“For a while, I considered children and child-rearing as these unexplainably horrendous endeavors, and it must seem that way to people with destroyed heritages, to people who’ve lost the connection to the traditional family structure. … I’m actually visiting my sister’s place right now, with her recent daughter, and her teething cries doesn’t really bother me, because I look at it in a larger, prouder context, thanks to you.”—
—“I see our people going down, the same people who created most of what has ever been great in this word, and having men like you in my life who can give rational reason to not give up, is important to me. It makes me want to find a nice Germanic lass and make 6 kids.”—
OK. Now I’m almost moved to tears. That’s exactly what we need to do.
–“This is what proper parents do for their children; we need to restore the proper family, to head off this dysgenic, infertile decline.”—
Reproduction is also UNDER YOUR CONTROL, where politics, law and the economy are not. You have complete control over it. So, be fertile and prosper. 😉
Men need to understand the collapse and why it occurred. We have to ignore feminist parasitism and rebellion and restore the family. We can defeat them in a few generations by merely ending immigration of the underclasses, and out-breeding them by two to one.
THANKS
Thank you for making my day. I’m thrilled for both of us. Love you man.
—“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders.
If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.
Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper.
Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-
—“Curt, you’ve been hinting that you think that high trust, low ethnocentrism is not an evolutionary strategy superior in every regard.”—
This is an interesting question because like supply-demand curves, no evolutionary strategy is beneficial under all conditions – other than rate of adaptation. Humans are special in our rate of adaptation because not only can we adapt by developing tools, we can adapt by changing our behavior, AND we can adapt merely by selective reproduction for the EXPRESSION of genes, AND we can adapt by selective SUPPRESSION of genes (genetic pacification), rather than merely waiting for mutations. As such we actually only have to modify our behavior, and reproductively select for different goods and pacify other traits as conditions change.
So we naturally encounter three overlapping fallacies in study of ourselves: The fallacy of linear progression(instead of supply-demand curves). The fallacy of progress (rather than adaptation). The fallacy of evolutionary direction (rather than evolution has no direction other than a bias for complexity in order to exploit niches).
Well, small, a high trust, highly innovative, technically advanced, militarily excellent, aristocratic population that is willing to conquer and rule can compete. Conversely, a small, high trust, highly innovative, technically advanced that is unwilling to maintain military excellence, unwilling to rule, and unwilling to defend its territory from incursion cannot compete.
So the reason I’m addressing these issues is the theory of “Peak Human”. Its not necessarily true that intelligence and limited reproduction are more beneficial than rapid reproduction and aggression. Malthus unbound means reproduction and aggression are more competitive than intelligence, innovation, and quality of life. Expensive and pacifist humans are a liability in a world of inexpensive and aggressive humans. More reproductive, less intelligent, more aggressive people will defeat less reproductive, more intelligent, less aggressive people. And it’s happening.
Which is obvious when we state it that way.
—“I got the impression that you thought the West would eventually be able to detect lying high ethnocentric cultures. Do you no longer feel this way? Because your exchange with him made it seem they’d have to become familial, rather than simply upgrade infringements of trust.”—
We can put into a constitution, and therefore into the common law an equivalent of the requirement for mathematical proofs (demonstrations of possibility), and scientific papers (a loose analogy but the best I can do). We can enumerate the steps necessary to propose a political statement (an offer of contract, bound by contract). We can return grammar, rhetoric, and logic to education. We can prosecute offenders, and suppress lying as well as error, bias, and wishful thinking. It might take six to ten years to work its way through the culture, but at some point after ten or more years, people will be so habituated into the demands of truth telling by simple exposure to it, that they’ll spot error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit easily. I mean, a lot of the most important disciplines do this today already. Law is not strictly constructed, but contracts are very close to programming at this point. Science does a fairly good job of peer review in the top journals – and law is nowhere near as difficult a problem as is physical science, because law (contract) is a justificationary process (known) and physical science is a critical process (unknown).
Now, I advocate a return to the traditional family because the absolute nuclear family is no longer useful because we move around too much. It was useful for forcing people to obtain homes, and for delaying child bearing, when they lived near one another. But what’s happened is that our people are becoming unhappy because they’re alone. And (in particular, our women) are more susceptible to ideology if they are alone rather than in families. And our rates of reproduction are better in traditional families with greater mutual economic, emotional, and generational support. For men, the ANF and divorce means early death.
Germany has for example, built large family sized apartments in the postwar era while Asia and to some degree, america, are building every smaller apartments – which is terrible for everyone involved.
The argument is that ANF families are higher trust than TRAD/STEM families, but that is because of norms not laws. If we have a legal system that enforces truth telling (now that we know how), that means that trust can be created regardless of reproductive family structure.
I try to say it this way: that while only northern europeans could EVOLVE high trust, once the technology is know everyone else can APPLY high trust ethics in law. Just like we invent other technologies that different cultures adapt.
My fantasy world is a future of high trust societies slowly suppressing low trust societies, just as agrarian societies suppressed banditry and raiding. As far as I can tell this is a logical progression of the incremental suppression of parasitism. Not that it’s a deterministic process, but because it’s a competitive evolutionary strategy just as the suppression of fraud, theft and violence were competitive strategies.
—“It’s hard for me to see how regression back to familialism is progress by any perspective. This “propagation of local genes” seems a flawed model, because it’s often not ultimately eugenic.”—
Well I think I answered the first part of this question already, but the second part is a common misunderstanding of inbreeding. It’s true that there is a minimum population necessary to prevent the problems of inbreeding. But it’s also true that there is a maximum population before we prevent error-correction. And a maximum population to produce attractive people by pairing off. Large Cities, particularly diverse large cities, are dysgenic as hell. What we see today is very much the reproductive strategy of crows: young people move to the city for opportunity and mating, then move to the suburbs to raise children.
—“I have my own Nietzschean critiques of the West, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t continue to pursue their evolutionary strategy of building a superior commons.”—
I agree. And that commons will be superior under Truthful Speech, Propertarian ethics, the traditional (extended) family, the elimination of the death tax, and the restoration of nobility (access to the senate) to a family that maintains its military, economic and social status sufficiently to afford to contribute to the commons over three or more generations.
Honestly, the forced exit of the martial class from politics since the Vietnam war is a significant part of the problem here. And it’s easy to fix.