Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • ERROR OF ANGLO UNIVERSALISM – CONVERSATION WITH NICHOLAS CARDACI ON EVOLUTIONARY

    https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/THE ERROR OF ANGLO UNIVERSALISM – CONVERSATION WITH NICHOLAS CARDACI ON EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES

    NICK

    Were you aware of this series of experiments that were carried out on evolutionary strategies competing with one another? I found them very useful:

    https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/

    CURT

    Yes. Axelrod and followers have been working on this model for many years. I include him in my reading list.

    This particular set of studies is interesting in that it addresses the value of ethnocentrism.

    While economic utility CAN be expressed as reproduction, it is not always the case as Sweden shows today.

    But I should probably comment on the study so that I draw the connection with propertarianism.

    NICK

    Were you surprised that the mechanism of ethnocentric ascension was straight up robbery of humanitarians, rather than limitation of free riding?

    I think there’s definitely both going on, but the weakness of the mediation (?) hypothesis surprised me.

    CURT

    No, it’s obvious. One of the values of modeling that Axelrod (and other life-models) brought to the debate (with the aid of computer science) was equilibrial modeling rather than linear projection.

    It’s great stuff. I think I read him first … I dunno. It seems like the 80’s or maybe early 90’s. My wife and I were travelling in the UK at the time and I read it in the wee hours of the morning.

    It was one of the most influential pieces that I read.

    Actually, maybe i’ll write a post about the relationship between axelrod in cooperation and mandelbrot in stock markets, and taleb in risk, and equilibrium in prices. These behaviors are all the same: before we had data and computers we could not conduct these measurements and we could not see them.

    This means that unless one can describe an idea as a supply and demand curve, that one is engaging in idealism.

    NICK

    I’ve been pondering this topic recently, mulling over the conflict between the moral universalism and ethnocentrism.

    One thing that’s readily obvious to me, especially being around alot of southern europeans, is that this ethnocentrism though isn’t always great. As it seems to me that it’s always accompanied with high family nepotism. Italy, is extremely regionalist and nepotistic within the family, and seriously limits how big their commons can be I think. The country is way too big as it is, with that level of heterogeneity.

    Some of it seems to be the greater levels of inbreeding that’s gone on historically.

    The bolded text in this post by hbd chick pretty much nails the kinship/family nepotism that goes on down there.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Reaction/comments/3gckby/the_reality_of_deep_southern_euro_inbreeding_is/

    Even in the anglo countries, I still see it going on, with italians from the same region letting eachother off parking fines

    It makes them more impervious to outside infiltration, but they can never reach the same commons as their northern neighbors.

    CURT

    Nepotism (family corporialism) is not the same as corruption or deceit. if one biases opportunities toward the family in maters not in the commons then that is not an imposition of costs upon others.

    If one exercises corruption in the production of commons, then that is another thing altogether.

    So you’d distinguish those then?

    CURT

    Yes. Favoring market opportunity is different from imposing costs upon the commons.

    Even the innocent nepotism, seems to be harmful to an extent. Like you mentioned on the Shoah, it limits a society’s ability to put the best person in the job.

    There was a good article recently outlining how in Romance Europe, family owned corporations are far more dominant than in the Anglo markets, where there’s ‘market-based management’, meritocracy essentially.

    So just as anglo model works under great opportunity (and as the model shows) the family model (and aristocracy which is also a family model) defeats the anglo over time.

    that’s what Axelrod’s model shows.

    NICK

    This is true. As they cooperate with people defecting against them. Yes. It seems to me to be both a gift and a curse. That’s cliched, but its the only way I can think do describe attitudes in southern europe.

    CURT

    It’s just that no principle of measurement is infinitely extensible. A rule acts as a means of measurement (decidability). There are not infinitely true rules. There are limits to every rule. (Which is a very complex bit of philosophy, but the reason why apriorism can’t be true.)

    The tactics you use in one circumstance and those in another are different. It is probably short term better to use universal ethics until your competitors catch up, and then return to familial ethics in order to prevent defectors from becoming parasites.

    (this is a very good discussion we should probably post for others to follow)

    NICK

    Yes. That’s what it seems to me. Southern europeans are capped in what they can do, but what they have is far more robust and secure than what the anglos and co have achieved.

    Should we post it on the Subreddit?

    CURT

    Yes. It’s a pretty good conversation that we can probably use to educate others. We are touching on a set of very big ideas here that are not obvious: the limits to any evolutaionary strategy, the advantage of familialism over universalism in the long term, the conceptual problem of training people to models and demand curves instead of ideal types and linear progressions.

    What we are saying is that we must increase the complexity of the basis of moral argument.

    NICK

    Yes, we cant simply pretend to have moral arguments among ourselves (as europeans) in isolation any longer. It’s eating away at us.

    I went through my finance textbook and found the study about family ownership I mentioned.

    Faccio & Lang, “The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations” (1997)

    A bit older than I thought

    Also, there’s a study indicating their outperformance over more anglo style firms, strangely enough.

    Anderson & Reeb, “Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance from the S&P500” (2003)

    Going to head off.

    CURT

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 07:02:00 UTC

  • REFRAMING THE DEBATE Conversation on positioning with Don Finn the other night.

    REFRAMING THE DEBATE

    Conversation on positioning with Don Finn the other night. This is how I came away with a minor tweak to the positioning.

    Cosmopolitan Ashkenazi, Low Trust, Un-landed, Authoritarian, Anarcho Capitalism

    vs

    Aristocratic, Anglo, High Trust, Landed, Legal, Anarcho Capitalism

    vs

    Martial, Germanic, High Trust, Landed, Hierarchical, Tribal/Familial Capitalism.

    As far as I can tell the germans were right prior to the conquest of the german civilization by it’s heretical offshoot the anglo civilization.

    The anglo method of law is correct but the strategy is incorrect. The german social order strategy is correct, but the justificationary kantian method is incorrect. The Ashkenazi social strategy is incorrect AND the pseudoscientific method is incorrect.

    Everyone got the enlightenment at least half wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 06:31:00 UTC

  • Cardaci sent this update on Axelrod’s work on the competitive value of ethnocent

    https://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/how-ethnocentrics-rule/Nicholas Cardaci sent this update on Axelrod’s work on the competitive value of ethnocentrism, and how entho-centrism always wins. I had assumed this was fairly obvious, but while axelrod also focuses on cooperation, I want to convert this into propertarian language and therefore make it more compatible with ethics and political economy. So over the next few months I’ll try to write a few posts that make use of this argument.

    (Thanks Nick)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 04:46:00 UTC

  • THE LIMITS OF COMMERCIAL(PROFIT) GOOD Commercial incentives to increase customer

    THE LIMITS OF COMMERCIAL(PROFIT) GOOD

    Commercial incentives to increase customers do not produce unending goods. At the point at which commercial expansion dilutes genetic, normative, institutional, land capital, built capital, commercial profit is merely the conduct of theft. And our bankers and politicians have been engaging not only in theft on a civilization-ending scale, but genocide. What is their means of restitution?

    (stick that in your progressive pipe and smoke it.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-11 08:52:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIAN FALLACY OF RACE –“race is a lousy proxy for violence”– This is emp

    ROTHBARDIAN FALLACY OF RACE

    –“race is a lousy proxy for violence”–

    This 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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-10 02:54:00 UTC

  • RACISM: RACE, CLASS, CULTURE, SIGNALS, POLITICS, GENETIC PACIFICATION (a) people

    RACISM: RACE, CLASS, CULTURE, SIGNALS, POLITICS, GENETIC PACIFICATION

    (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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-09 04:09:00 UTC

  • We were wrong to approve the 1965 immigration act, and wrong to open the borders

    We were wrong to approve the 1965 immigration act, and wrong to open the borders to the third world.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 13:37:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629647488086097920

    Reply addressees: @JulieBorowski

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629413750332911616

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JulieBorowski

    Is america the greatest nation in the history of history or nah?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629413750332911616

  • WHY RULE? Europe ended at the Sahara. Now Africa ends at the Alps. Soon it will

    WHY RULE?

    Europe 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 09:22:00 UTC

  • RUSSIA CAN LIMIT, IT CANNOT LEAD. Circumpolar people

    RUSSIA CAN LIMIT, IT CANNOT LEAD.

    Circumpolar people.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 00:24:00 UTC

  • Aristocracy (Advocacy), Not Racism (Criticism)

    [R]ace debate is not helpful to anyone. Aristocracy is. Culling your herd (tribe) will produce a universal aristocracy regardless of race. We, the Chinese and the European Jews have been the best at culling our herds. The other civilizations simply haven’t been successful at culling their tribes. I don’t see differences in races of homo-sapiens other than reproductive value, and distribution of talents. And the distribution of talents is a function of thefailure to suppress the lower classes from reproducing.

    That’s it. I don’t care about the color of your skin so much as I care about the distribution of talents in your family. You are either successful at improving your family or you are not. If you are not then your aristocracy is a failure. The alternative is just to breed as many of the worst as possible and use the export of your bad genes as a weapon. Which is what the muslim world is doing.