Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • Race Is A Problem Of Distributions

    [I] hate discussion of race really, but since my position is somewhat novel, I feel the need to vent my frustration at what I see as a the result of a series of mainstream errors that attempt to justify democracy by criticizing the natural and unavoidable behavior of man.   Instead of truthfully addressing the issue, we lie and try to convince each other of the lie.  It doesn’t work. Religion works because you can’t see any evidence other than people’s behavior.  Criticisms of race don’t work because we can always see evidence of group behavior.

    Race: Demonstrated behavior in favor of kin selection; most commonly performed as some form of ostracization by means of (a) physical and legal, (b) boycott of commerce and cooperation, (c) gossip and ridicule.

    So, the whole debate over race is a dishonest postmodern byproduct of the fallacy of democracy. People will never stop favoring kin selection in politics or any other walk of life. Race is extremely valuable to the middle and lower classes, even if almost entirely irrelevant to the upper classes. The margins will always interbreed because it’s to their status advantage if not their offspring’s.

    THE PROBLEM IS DEMOCRATIC JUSTIFICATION OF EMPIRES
    Democratic empires like the USA and Europe are a catastrophe that makes hostility between of families with different abilities, needs and wants. Representative Democracy is an obscurant technology similar to overloading in rhetoric, pooling and laundering in money and finance, platonism in mathematics, and morality in politics.  Democracy obscures, and justifies, because it is only possible to employ in the consideration of particulars, and NOT in the consideration of sets of decisions. Especially when the particulars within each set of decisions provides incentives for corruption, contrivance, and deceit.  

    There isn’t necessarily any problem with direct democracy on normative matters, and economic democracy on investment matters.  There just isn’t.  The problem with direct democracy is no longer one of practicality, but one of the impossibility of common interest.  

    THE PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT:
    The only material difference between the races is the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. This problem was solved in the west by marriage, manorialism and harsh winters if not plagues, and in the east through starvation and political killing of even the most marginal of malcontents. It was marginally solved by the hindus via the caste system, while muslims, and africans had no means of solving it at all. Thankfully, in modernity it can be solved through redistribution in exchange for one child limits, rather than through starvation and extermination.  We can pay people NOT to commit the crime of parasitic reproduction, rather than punish them and the innocent for parasitic reproduction.

    The only significant political difference between races is merely one of distributions.  

    Without this difference in distributions, we would have very few political problems between the races of man.

    (NOTE: I suppose I should diagram this argument as a set of demand curves for desirability as mates, group insurance value, and IQ/Impulsivity.  I haven’t really spent much time demonstrating propertarianism using Austrian ‘triangles’ – or, more appropriately: multi-dimensional demand curves.  But the world needs such a thing. And needs it desperately.)   


  • Natural eugenics —“Beginning around 2010, as birthrates among whites started s

    Natural eugenics

    —“Beginning around 2010, as birthrates among whites started steadily to climb up, birthrates among blacks began to go down. In 2013, blacks had a birthrate of 12.7, the lowest of any group in the city, with the abortion rate four times as high among black women as among white women.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-03 07:18:00 UTC

  • TODAY YOU FORCED ME TO CHOOSE MY IDENTITY —“… today is another day you have

    TODAY YOU FORCED ME TO CHOOSE MY IDENTITY

    —“… today is another day you have forced me to decide who I identify with—and, as always when you force me—I fall decidedly on the side of “Western Civilization”.

    …

    I see an unrestrained underclass incapable of building or maintaining a functioning society eagerly looting and pillaging that society on the flimsiest of pretexts

    I see the consequences of a growing number of unskilled people in an American job market that increasingly has no use for them, consequences accentuated by uncontrolled immigration

    I see disorganized, irresponsible mothers desperately trying to fill paternal roles they are incapable of adequately fulfilling on their own

    I see the conflagration being kindled by an Establishment that presumes straight white men are explicitly guilty until proven innocent and implicitly guilty irrespective of the evidence

    I see those flames of resentment being stoked by an Establishment that treats blacks who suffer at the hands of authority figures as sacred beings beyond reproach no matter how inappropriate, illegal, and dangerous the actions and behaviors leading to said suffering has been

    I see the gross double standards for behavior that allow blacks to do and say with impunity things that cause whites who do and say the same things to be purged from their jobs and excommunicated from polite society

    If you not looking at crime rates empirically, not engaging in candid conversations about human population differences, not paying attention to how blatantly false the official narratives so often are, then you are perpetuating vicious racial hatreds by blaming everything on white America. That Trayvon Martin was being punched by George Zimmerman, that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot, that excessive force was used to subdue Eric Garner, that Walter Scott was hunted down in cold blood, that a racist white cop is being charged with second-degree murder in the death of Eddie Gray are all perceptions that are both widely believed and demonstrably false. This mendacity affects lives every day. We would be prudent to consider it all the time rather than, say, none of the time.

    According to the Cathedral’s doctrine of racism as white Original Sin, even if you have striven to cleanse yourself of your white privilege by partaking in self-flagellating acts of penance, voting for Barack Obama, emphasizing your Jewish heritage, and supporting perpetual wealth transfers from (other) whites to non-whites, you cannot escape the shade of your skin. Being a business managing, heterosexual, college-educated Midwestern white male from a middle class background places me near the bottom of the victimization pyramid. Quotas, PR departments, and PC etiquette dictate that despite being worse than useless when it comes to gaining anyone any points for diversity, I nonetheless be forever prepared to give and never to take. This necessarily gives me little recourse but to turn my back on a society that despises me when it’s not trying to despoil me.

    For most of my childhood, I actively tried to keep race from being a defining factor in my social affairs. I find this an increasingly difficult position to maintain, given the reality of biological differences between people and, by extension, groups of people. Because I have to worry about my son’s safety or my wife’s well being if either of them find themselves among large numbers of blacks or in areas that are predominately black. Because people react to my sagacious, industrious, intelligent father differently, depending on whether they are aspiring entrepreneurs or parasitic bums. Race has come to influence the way I see the world because race has so much influence on how the world works.”—

    (edited to remove Apologist positioning)

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2015/05/saloncom.html

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-02 11:43:00 UTC

  • BALTIMORE I’m prefacing this with my usual “I don’t care about race, I care abou

    BALTIMORE

    I’m prefacing this with my usual “I don’t care about race, I care about people competing in racial blocks, voting in racial blocks, and about getting median IQ over 106 – which appears necessary for liberty.”

    —“Baltimore is typical of many Midwestern and Northern cities, whose demographics were forever changed by the great black migration of the twentieth century. Not unexpectedly we found a cognitive discontinuity at the city line. Surprising, however, was its magnitude. Whereas suburban mean IQs (86 for blacks, 99 for whites) conform more or less to national norms, city IQs are dreadfully low. With a mean IQ of 76, inner-city blacks fall about 0.6 SD below the African American average nationally. More than a third have death-penalty immunity on grounds of mental retardation. The inner-city white mean of 86 is nearly a full standard deviation below the national white average.”—

    The point here being the last: –” The inner-city white mean of 86 is nearly a full standard deviation below the national white average.”–

    There is a reason we defend our elites, and a reason for the racism of the lower middle and upper proletarian classes: its in their interests in every temporal dimension.

    Under aristocracy, and under nationalism, we can assist one another in the advancement of our families without the sacrifice of dysgenia. Aristocratic eugnenics favor ALL GROUPS, ALL RACES, ALL TRIBES over time. Dysgenic democratic socialism favors only the bottom groups at the expense of the top groups over time.

    This is the correct class analysis that marx worked desperately to obscure.

    EDIT

    In response to messages: the reason for low IQ in Baltimore is white flight followed by black flight.

    The bad drives out the good regardless of color.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-02 05:30:00 UTC

  • RACE IS A MATTER OF DISTRIBUTIONS I hate this discussion, but since my position

    RACE IS A MATTER OF DISTRIBUTIONS

    I hate this discussion, but since my position is somewhat novel, I feel the need to vent my frustration at what I see as a the result of a series of mainstream errors that attempt to justify democracy by criticizing the natural and unavoidable behavior of man.

    Race: Demonstrated behavior in favor of kin selection; most commonly demonstrated as some form of ostracization by means of (a) physical and legal, (b) boycott of commerce and cooperation, (c) gossip and ridicule.

    I hate this discussion because it’s a byproduct of the fallacy of democracy. People will never stop favoring kin selection in politics or any other walk of life. Race is extremely valuable to the middle and lower classes, and almost entirely irrelevant to the upper classes. The margins will always interbreed because it’s to their status advantage if not their offspring’s. Democratic empires are a catastrophe that makes hostility out of families with different abilities, needs and wants.

    THE PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENT:

    The only material difference between the races is the rates of reproduction of the underclasses. This problem was solved in the west by manorialism and harsh winters, and in the east through starvation and easy killing. In modernity it can be solved through redistribution in exchange for one child limits.

    The only significant difference between races is merely one of distributions.

    Without this difference in distributions, we would have very few political problems between the races of man.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-02 04:09:00 UTC

  • WE WERE VERTICALLY SPECIATING DUE TO GEOGRAPHY, AND NOW WE ARE DEVELOPING CASTES

    WE WERE VERTICALLY SPECIATING DUE TO GEOGRAPHY, AND NOW WE ARE DEVELOPING CASTES: HORIZONTALLY SPECIATING DUE TO ABILITIES

    —“every major group of humans today (major = numerous) is the product of fusions of branches of the human race which were sharply diverged during the Pleistocene. The genomes of individuals and peoples then represent a complex and reticulated graph of interlaced histories. Reducing them to branching trees obscures rather than illuminates.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-01 03:44:00 UTC

  • “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

    “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 04:14:00 UTC

  • WEALTH AND IQ We have lost three points due to immigration already. Two more poi

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/national-wealth-and-iq/NATIONAL WEALTH AND IQ

    We have lost three points due to immigration already. Two more points and there is no way that our norms and institutions can compensate for it.

    Now, I usually put it this way: all verbal IQ over 106 provides the ability to express ideas and to repair machines. Below that people must learn by imitation. So the less of your population is below 106 (which is a sort of magic number) the better off you will be. The further below 106, the worse off that you would be.

    Northern Europeans were about on par with the Ashkenazim in 1850. We have lost our comparative advantage, and we are about to lose our relative advantage.

    Progressive idiocy aside: breeding matters. And good people don’t breed as much as not-so-good people.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-15 12:55:00 UTC

  • hates white people. Just like Paul Krugman. between them and the NYT

    http://conservativetribune.com/video-surfaces-obama-1995/Obama hates white people. Just like Paul Krugman. between them and the NYT…

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-15 07:59:00 UTC

  • My Criticism Of David Miller Is A Very Limited One

    —“What, if i may ask, is your criticism of Miller? it would be interesting to see if it holds water”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
    (reposted for archival purposes)


    [V]al,

    I don’t disagree with Miller’s multiple “standards of justice”. I just would state it very differently, as necessities, demands, incentives, and evolutionary strategies. I mean, I say the same thing. I just say it very differently.) That said, standard of logical decidability in all matters is provided by one universal moral rule that is necessary – but we can build infinitely complex systems upon it. That one rule provides us with Decidability in law regardless of construction of social norms, and that single, necessary inescapable, universal logical test is very different from the contractual terms by which we construct social orders out of various exchanges, and inside of which we produce multiple standards of justice.

    One thought: (A Criticism)
    —“By mistakenly supposing that thinking intelligently is identical with
    thinking logically, critical thinking textbooks almost invariably regard the purpose of argument to be a combination of justification and persuasion, authoritarian goals that critical rationalists, and other supporters of the open society, must shun. “— David Miller

    (Abstract)
    Well, his criticism is correct, in that our populace is being taught very bad (justificationary ideas). But then, he doesn’t solve the problem. Popper’s argument is much narrower than Miller intuits.

    So, I think that this is not quite right. Instead:
    (a) I must justify my actions in accordance with objective morality, local norms and laws. (I must show that I met terms of the contract for cooperation – thus if I err I am blameless and free of restitution.)
    (b) I must warranty my testimony is truthful by critically prosecuting it.
    (c) I must(can) Innovate (reason / Develop Theories) by any free associative principle possible.
    I believe that is the correct hierarchy. Because it is a NECESSARY hierarchy. Just as these are necessary hierarchies:
    (a) Tautology, Deduction, Induction, Abduction, Guessing, and Free associating.
    (b) Teleological ethics, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, and intuitionistic ethics.
    (c) Murder, violence, theft, fraud, omission, indirection, socialization, free riding, privatization, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, conquest, and destruction.
    (d) manners, ethics, morals, laws, constitutions, property.
    (e) life, movement, memory, cost, property, cooperation, norms, property rights laws, government, state, empire.

    So, I while I understand Miller’s assumption, he is making a mistake of ‘one-ness’ or ‘monopoly’ that is a byproduct of some rather structural errors implicit in the use of logic in the discipline of philosophy. Which, if were instead, express not as manipulation of sets (which is how he works if I remember correctly) , but as a sequence of possible actions (existentially possible categories of actions), then he might not make this mistake. I mean, it seems that falsification is a hammer, and everything appears to be a nail. But at some point this is nothing but framing (using concepts one has specialization in, rather than integrating those concepts into the greater whole.

    And in this case, the greater whole, is the universal language of truth telling: science. And until insights obtained through logical analysis can be converted into truthful speech (scientific language) then it remains UNFALSIFIED. <– ***Which is my underlying argument.***

    One of the things economics teaches you is to think about equilibrating processes that negate all our actions into the realm of marginal indifference, rather than seeking binary truth of states.

    So I would argue that we should be taught the following:
    1) Manners, ethics, and Morality under the Golden Rule, Silver Rule, and the one-rule of property and voluntary exchange. The miracle of cooperation. How we insure one another in a multitude of ways.
    2) Truthfulness, Witness and Testimony (Operationalism and Existential Possibility) as well as how to spot errors in truthfulness, witness, and testimony.
    3) Logic, Grammar, Rhetoric, Debate and Oratory (as we once were), including how to spot ignorance, error, bias, deception, and Loading-Framing-Overloading (“Suggestion that overwhelms reason”).
    4) External Correspondence (empirical observation, analysis and testing) with a nod to Instrumentalism. And how to falsify external correspondence. What a pseudoscience is, and how to spot it.
    5) How to use free association (what we call ‘creativity’) “Filling the shelves of your mind, and then ‘playing’. Which is a discipline if you work at it. (It’s my preferred discipline.)
    6) arithmetic, accounting, finance, economics (in that order)
    7) Mathematics, Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry, and at least the ‘idea’ of calculus. But taught as the history of the development of these problems that people were solving, instead of as wrote. With far more emphasis on word problems.
    8) Mind. Biology. Chemistry, Physics, (in that order)

    And honestly, I think all philosophy is discardable except as an interesting inquiry into the intellectual history of the struggle to develop science: Truth telling.

    I hope this puts my criticism of Miller in perspective.

    Curt Doolittle