Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • Fear of Outsiders: Against Psychologism

    1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response. 2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

    3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living). So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) and a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary. (Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)

  • Fear of Outsiders: Against Psychologism

    1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response. 2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

    3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living). So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) and a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary. (Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)

  • FEAR OF OUTSIDERS: AGAINST PSYCHOLOGISM 1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ bu

    FEAR OF OUTSIDERS: AGAINST PSYCHOLOGISM

    1) Fear of outsiders is not ‘a thing’ but a universal human reaction. Or at least it is outside of northern europeans. It is not an irrational fear. It is a rational fear. That is why humans bear the intuition. It is an instance of the disgust response.

    2) The Fear of Catholics and Jews was warranted. Any student of intellectual and legal history will have trouble arguing otherwise. Prohibition was an example of the reaction to catholic immigration. Jews have had an equally negative effect in a number of areas. YOu can say in both cases that we have endured those negatives. But it is very hard to say that between the catholics and jews that rule of law persists. (you may not like it, but it is what it is.)

    3) High trust society resists lower trust cultures. And we pay the price for integrating lower trust cultures with traditional families into high trust culture with absolute nuclear families. It is what it is. Trust decreases, civic participation decreases, economic velocity decreases. (and yes that’s the case, although it’s very contentious, I am pretty sure I can hold that argument against any economist living).

    So it is a rational instinct (we evolved it for a reason) a rational fear (empirically the consequences have been catastrophic since 1963). And we require both empirical and operational means of testing such statements to the contrary. (Human perception being one of frog-boiling intertemporal incompetence.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-30 09:50:00 UTC

  • UM. THE SCANDINAVIAN SUCCESS THING? IT”S GENETIC. OK? —“A Scandinavian economi

    UM. THE SCANDINAVIAN SUCCESS THING? IT”S GENETIC. OK?

    —“A Scandinavian economist once said to Milton Friedman, ‘In Scandinavia, we have no poverty’. Milton Friedman replied, ‘That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either’.”— (from Steve Sailer)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 05:02:00 UTC

  • GENETICS HBDChick’s Thesis on Groupishness. Jayman’s “Tribalism” and his attack

    GENETICS

    HBDChick’s Thesis on Groupishness.

    Jayman’s “Tribalism” and his attack on pseudoscience.

    Todd’s Invention of Europe

    GROUP STRATEGY

    Kevin MacDonald’s CoC.

    My competing versions of truth

    CULTURE AND INSTITUTIONS

    You can get more out of Ricardo Duchesne’s Uniqueness of Western civ.

    But I think truth is the answer.

    So I am sort of working myself into this narrative. And that’s both informative and bad (becuase it’s tainted).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-26 07:18:00 UTC

  • NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD Cosmopolitan Libertarians (mea

    NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD

    Cosmopolitan Libertarians (meaning zero-commons advocates) do not perceive the commons as in their reproductive interests, so they reject paying for them. Mostly because they are rejects. It’s logical.

    Anglo libertarians (meaning advocates of commons free of perverse incentives), or what we call ‘small government, classical liberals’ are not rejects, and do not object to paying for commons. They object to predation, parasitism, commons that create perverse incentives.

    >>> That is called “the modern regulatory nation-state”, not “libertarians.”

    Curt Doolittle

    Actually no. Rothbardian ethics (Cosmopolitan Libertinism) circumvent not only all physical, but all normative commons consequent to intersubjectively verifiable property. As walter block and Rothbard argue, blackmail, abuse of asymmetric information, externality, and no promise of warranty are central to the libertarian ethical system. Period.

    In other words, Rothbardian ethics are the ethics of the ghetto: the low trust society of the ghetto and levant. Rothbard advanced Jewish ghetto ethics (separatism) as a substitute for anglo Saxon liberty (high trust and extensive commons). And while it is possible to use Rothbard’s ethical system for inter-state law (separatists), it is insufficient for intra-group law, since low trust increases both transaction costs and demand for authoritarian intervention to suppress retaliation for actions that invoke retaliation.

    So, no, it’s not an opinion, it’s merely fact. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic, and since they encourage parasitism, predatory, and non-rational, since demand for the state is equal to the lack of suppression (means of resolution) for impositions of costs both physical, institutional and normative.

    That’s just empirical. People retaliate. People pay high costs to retaliate.

    That’s because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding, so we evolved altruistic punishment in order to prevent disintegration of cooperation by the production of perverse incentives. This desire to retaliate on one hand and invest on the other is called our ‘moral intuitions’.

    Rothbardianism is objectively, rationally, empirically, immoral.

    Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 10:16:00 UTC

  • ME

    http://humanvarieties.org/2015/06/19/nature-of-race-published/READ ME

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-21 16:54:00 UTC

  • AS USUAL ; READ EVERY WORD. NORTH SEA SMART DIVERGING ON 1050 AND HAD THE PROTES

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/carts-before-horses/AWESOME AS USUAL ; READ EVERY WORD. NORTH SEA SMART DIVERGING ON 1050 AND HAD THE PROTESTANT ETHIC LONG BEFORE PROTESTANTISM

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-21 16:13:00 UTC

  • HBD-DEFINITION (worth repeating) HUMAN BIO-DIVERSITY: “The study of heritable hu

    HBD-DEFINITION

    (worth repeating)

    HUMAN BIO-DIVERSITY: “The study of heritable human genetic differences and the variation in distribution of those differences within human populations that show affinity for one another. And where those affinities express themselves as political, social, familial, and personal institutions, behaviors, abilities and preferences. And where those expressions of differences have economic, institutional, and normative consequences, and where those consequences cause economic and political competition and conflict. HBD is an attempt to understand the source of differences in modes and methods of human cooperation due to biological and normative differences.” – Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-20 09:37:00 UTC

  • THE CATHOLICS DID TREMENDOUS DAMAGE —“Ted Kennedy’s ’65 immigration act was “s

    THE CATHOLICS DID TREMENDOUS DAMAGE

    —“Ted Kennedy’s ’65 immigration act was “specifically designed to change the demographics of this country. When it went through, as with Obamacare, surrounded with lies, a miasma of lies: ‘this will not change the demographic of America; we’ll get basically the same people we’ve always gotten.’” But, instead, Coulter asserted, this act “was specifically designed to bring in peasant cultures who would remain poor for generations, remain on government support, so that you would have a solid block of Democratic voters, and it worked.”… “Obama never would have been elected. …. Romney would have won a bigger landslide than Reagan did against Carter in 1980.”— ibid

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-19 06:16:00 UTC