Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • Compatibilism

    [J]ust as male and female evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives, White European and Jewish evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives. But would the jews give up their parasitic ethics? I don’t think so. Any more than whites will give up heroism. Truth and trust are far less advantageous that pragmatism and parasitism. Truth and trust works best for a warrior people. But for a commercial people pragmatism and parasitism is a superior strategy. The problem is that you can’t build fixed capital without warriors.

  • COMPATIBILISM Just as male and female evolutionary strategies are different, but

    COMPATIBILISM

    Just as male and female evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives, White European and Jewish evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives. But would the jews give up their parasitic ethics? I don’t think so. Any more than whites will give up heroism. Truth and trust are far less advantageous that pragmatism and parasitism. Truth and trust works best for a warrior people. But for a commercial people pragmatism and parasitism is a superior strategy. The problem is that you can’t build fixed capital without warriors.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-23 00:11:00 UTC

  • WHAT WAS THE AGENDA OF THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL? —“facilitating radical individual

    WHAT WAS THE AGENDA OF THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL?

    —“facilitating radical individualism (social atomization) among gentiles while retaining a powerful sense of group cohesion among Jews—the agenda of the Frankfurt School.”—

    You know, truth would have worked a lot better. Why wasn’t the truth amenable? Was there some reason that truth was problematic? Why is it that our tribes cannot unite? Would identity be lost? Has it been lost to any tribe? No. Why cannot we form a global elite that is mutually beneficial?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-22 14:24:00 UTC

  • Is that why there are no other high trust people? The remoteness and homogeneity

    Is that why there are no other high trust people? The remoteness and homogeneity of the north sea?

    Because that kind if gullibility is a catastrophic vulnerability?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-21 08:16:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) ****The interesting thing about westerners is that while we ca

    (worth repeating)

    ****The interesting thing about westerners is that while we can make this observation about other cultures, we cannot introspectively make this observation about our own: that truth is a promise about a product that you testify and warranty – a product that you place into the market for use until someone invents a better one. Nor is it obvious the value of this approach over the approach that truth is unknowable – something platonic or divine.****

    Profound.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-21 03:19:00 UTC

  • Race is only a problem because of democracy – because of monopoly rule, and the

    Race is only a problem because of democracy – because of monopoly rule, and the power granted to the winners of monopoly rule, over others. Instead, polycentrism, and aristocratic egalitarianism, are merely a means of cooperating between families, on behalf of families. Under democracy heads of classes are forced into conflict for power. Under aristocracy we are placed only into market competition. An aristocrat has no possible reason for conflict with other aristocrats from any background in the world. Democracy is the reason for racial conflict. Otherwise we can just cooperate or engage in conflict as we have always done – regardless of race, and entirely because of economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-20 02:41:00 UTC

  • Aristocracy and Higher Tribalism (Instead of Democracy and Infighting.)

    [A]ristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production. I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology. And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will. All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

  • Aristocracy and Higher Tribalism (Instead of Democracy and Infighting.)

    [A]ristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production. I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology. And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will. All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

  • ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our trib

    ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM

    Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production.

    I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology.

    And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will.

    All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:31:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: UKRAINIAN ENTREPRENEURS. I crashed a Ukrainian entreprene

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: UKRAINIAN ENTREPRENEURS.

    I crashed a Ukrainian entrepreneurs meeting tonight. I like to visit these whenever I can, wherever on earth I am at the time. And see if I can help anyone at all, or meet some interesting people. Tonight was fun – really.

    Talked about how much I love Ukraine and didn’t realize myself how passionate I am.

    Many had the same feeling. But the reason why is interesting: because we all felt we could make a difference here, and in the west we can be consumers, sure, but have no meaningful impact.

    That realization and the feeling was moving. In Ukraine, every entrepreneur matters.

    Every single one.

    And that is a spiritual reward that is hard to obtain elsewhere.

    I need to propagate that message. Ukraine is awesome for biz.

    Met a young lawyer in IT law educated in the UK. Gonna switch. Hate my UA lawyer. ( american).

    Had to stay in message that you find customers with problems and create companies to solve them. You do not build a business you know about and sell it. I want to kill the “idea” meme and push the customer meme because that is the primary reason young people fail. No matter what you think, you’re just ignorant by your customers standards. You must find problems customers cant solve and know more about that than they do. Otherwise you are wasting your time and theirs with your ignorance.

    Talked a little about why Ukraine can only export labor: because there is no accumulated capital whether cultural, institutional, organizational, not patterns of trade, no trusted networks. No accumulated advantage at all. They need to get local capital investment to build Ukrainian companies that accumulate capital locally rather than exporting all the capital produced by their cheap labor.we think in terms of companies in the west but it is the network of companies in any sector that produces goods and services – including the most important companies: the courts/lawyers and banks/accountants. Ukraine doesn’t have them.

    You cannot really fathom how important Austrian economics is to business people ( sans Misesian pseudoscience) in this part of the world. Macro is for politicians. Austrian is for entrepreneurs. ( i hope i live ling enough to repair Austrian economics and rescue it from misesian pseudoscience). I kinda think its gonna take beyond my lifetime to get across how important my ideas are)

    Pissed off one guy by saying that it was cheaper to pay unnecessary government employees to stay home than to have them impede the economy.

    Same guy who thought it was good that the government tried to force money to stay in the country rather than give people reasons to keep it here. He said something else economically destructive. But I forgot it. I should have given him more attention because i didn’t explain his (common) errors. And now he will just hate me. But I cant be on my game all the time..,

    I fucking love ukrainians: all the goodness of americans without the bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 14:48:00 UTC