Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • (TRIBE) NOT IDEOLOGY (GOVERNMENT) IS MOVING THE WORLD. Or let me put it this way

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-identity-not-ideology-is-moving-the-world/2014/07/03/631ff338-02d7-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.htmlIDENTITY (TRIBE) NOT IDEOLOGY (GOVERNMENT) IS MOVING THE WORLD.

    Or let me put it this way first:

    Tribalism is more important than ideology, since we’ve all adopted some form of consumer capitalism.

    Or let me put it this way second:

    The nonsense that america is an ‘idea’ (an ideology) is dead, and likewise, america’s tribes are asserting themselves in reaction to the death of ideology.

    A friend reminded me tonight that The Big Sort continues, and that americans are moving into culturally and tribally oriented areas. Meanwhile, we are also reproducing into castes on a scale that has never been possible before.

    The old political order of the nation state cum-heterogeneous empire, cannot survive this change. so we will either see more empire (tyranny) or more tribalism (city states). I prefer the latter, obviously.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 15:27:00 UTC

  • More On Salon's "Coming Apart" Article (Response 2)

    MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2 DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE 1) NATION: A ‘nation’ describes a body of people with similar genetic, linguistic, cultural, normative, and religious properties. When we discuss a diverse populace we do not use the term nation, we use the term EMPIRE. All diverse states must be either federations(voluntary and excitable) or empires (involuntary and non-exitable). If a diverse body of people contains a minority that cannot succeed then it is an empire. China is an empire. America is an empire. Labeling the USA as a nation is a dishonest attempt to label a heterogeneous voluntary polity with the legitimacy of a homogenous nation state, when in fact, it is merely a heterogeneous empire with a record of violence to oppress attempts at secession. 2) MORAL AND “CHOICE” RATHER THAN ECONOMIC AND “POSSIBLE” ARGUMENTS —“Yet somehow the republic kept experiencing what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom,” thanks only partly to the fortuitous confluence of two oceans’ protection, a vast continent’s ever-alluring frontier and unending streams of aspiring immigrants:”— Lets not be dishonest here, and cast this as a moral argument. The reason for American economic success is that the colonists used british weapons and might to conquer a continent, then steal that continent for themselves. Then sell it off to immigrants, and profit from it. It has been the most profitable conquest and sale of a territory in history. Even today, for all intents and purposes, the american economy consists largely of the housing business. As the housing business goes, so does the american economy. The problem is that we have run out of immigrants from high trust societies, from nuclear family societies, from empirical societies, from rule of law societies, and from truth-telling societies. And contrary to dogma, the evidence is that immigrants from these cultures are not adapting to the (a) absolute nuclear family (b) meritocracy (c) self-supporting productivity (d) minimal statism, (d) civic society, (e) common language, that was what was required of immigrants in order to participate in the american dream of having land so that one could control one’s destiny. WIthout those norms and habits, america has evolved from a polity of ideas, to a simple empire of increasing totalitarianism as the productive classes are slowly farmed to service the unproductive classes, and single motherhood and requisite poverty of single motherhood, has now reach near majority status. Thousands of years of suppressing single motherhood and its endemic poverty and dependency have been reversed in less than a century. 3) ECONOMIC TRUTH vs MORAL JUSTIFICATION Economic history is the only form of truth we can extract from the past. Humans justify their wants, given the conditions that they live under. This article is not much different from ‘god wills it’ because its arguments are allegorical and moral, with a thin veneer of rationalism. Whereas a scientists would look at the economy, the incentives, and demonstrated human behavior and dismantle the authors entire line of argument as a series of childlike justifications of pre-cognitive, non rational, counter-productive human cognitive biases – just as easily as he could dismantle the composition of a rock by mass spectrometry, and just as accurately. The truth is quite different. Humans act as tribes, and these tribes make best use of the circumstances that they can to increase their status and reproductive ability. SOme of theses strategies are successful (rapid population expansion of poor peoples) and some are unsuccessful (progressive status seeking at the expense of child bearing). Time determines winners, not words. Words are used to deceive. We deceive in order to steal. The only true words are operational words. Everything else is analogy. And almost all analogy is a lie.

  • More On Salon’s “Coming Apart” Article (Response 2)

    MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2 DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE 1) NATION: A ‘nation’ describes a body of people with similar genetic, linguistic, cultural, normative, and religious properties. When we discuss a diverse populace we do not use the term nation, we use the term EMPIRE. All diverse states must be either federations(voluntary and excitable) or empires (involuntary and non-exitable). If a diverse body of people contains a minority that cannot succeed then it is an empire. China is an empire. America is an empire. Labeling the USA as a nation is a dishonest attempt to label a heterogeneous voluntary polity with the legitimacy of a homogenous nation state, when in fact, it is merely a heterogeneous empire with a record of violence to oppress attempts at secession. 2) MORAL AND “CHOICE” RATHER THAN ECONOMIC AND “POSSIBLE” ARGUMENTS —“Yet somehow the republic kept experiencing what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom,” thanks only partly to the fortuitous confluence of two oceans’ protection, a vast continent’s ever-alluring frontier and unending streams of aspiring immigrants:”— Lets not be dishonest here, and cast this as a moral argument. The reason for American economic success is that the colonists used british weapons and might to conquer a continent, then steal that continent for themselves. Then sell it off to immigrants, and profit from it. It has been the most profitable conquest and sale of a territory in history. Even today, for all intents and purposes, the american economy consists largely of the housing business. As the housing business goes, so does the american economy. The problem is that we have run out of immigrants from high trust societies, from nuclear family societies, from empirical societies, from rule of law societies, and from truth-telling societies. And contrary to dogma, the evidence is that immigrants from these cultures are not adapting to the (a) absolute nuclear family (b) meritocracy (c) self-supporting productivity (d) minimal statism, (d) civic society, (e) common language, that was what was required of immigrants in order to participate in the american dream of having land so that one could control one’s destiny. WIthout those norms and habits, america has evolved from a polity of ideas, to a simple empire of increasing totalitarianism as the productive classes are slowly farmed to service the unproductive classes, and single motherhood and requisite poverty of single motherhood, has now reach near majority status. Thousands of years of suppressing single motherhood and its endemic poverty and dependency have been reversed in less than a century. 3) ECONOMIC TRUTH vs MORAL JUSTIFICATION Economic history is the only form of truth we can extract from the past. Humans justify their wants, given the conditions that they live under. This article is not much different from ‘god wills it’ because its arguments are allegorical and moral, with a thin veneer of rationalism. Whereas a scientists would look at the economy, the incentives, and demonstrated human behavior and dismantle the authors entire line of argument as a series of childlike justifications of pre-cognitive, non rational, counter-productive human cognitive biases – just as easily as he could dismantle the composition of a rock by mass spectrometry, and just as accurately. The truth is quite different. Humans act as tribes, and these tribes make best use of the circumstances that they can to increase their status and reproductive ability. SOme of theses strategies are successful (rapid population expansion of poor peoples) and some are unsuccessful (progressive status seeking at the expense of child bearing). Time determines winners, not words. Words are used to deceive. We deceive in order to steal. The only true words are operational words. Everything else is analogy. And almost all analogy is a lie.

  • More On Salon's "Coming Apart" Article (Response 2)

    MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2 DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE 1) NATION: A ‘nation’ describes a body of people with similar genetic, linguistic, cultural, normative, and religious properties. When we discuss a diverse populace we do not use the term nation, we use the term EMPIRE. All diverse states must be either federations(voluntary and excitable) or empires (involuntary and non-exitable). If a diverse body of people contains a minority that cannot succeed then it is an empire. China is an empire. America is an empire. Labeling the USA as a nation is a dishonest attempt to label a heterogeneous voluntary polity with the legitimacy of a homogenous nation state, when in fact, it is merely a heterogeneous empire with a record of violence to oppress attempts at secession. 2) MORAL AND “CHOICE” RATHER THAN ECONOMIC AND “POSSIBLE” ARGUMENTS —“Yet somehow the republic kept experiencing what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom,” thanks only partly to the fortuitous confluence of two oceans’ protection, a vast continent’s ever-alluring frontier and unending streams of aspiring immigrants:”— Lets not be dishonest here, and cast this as a moral argument. The reason for American economic success is that the colonists used british weapons and might to conquer a continent, then steal that continent for themselves. Then sell it off to immigrants, and profit from it. It has been the most profitable conquest and sale of a territory in history. Even today, for all intents and purposes, the american economy consists largely of the housing business. As the housing business goes, so does the american economy. The problem is that we have run out of immigrants from high trust societies, from nuclear family societies, from empirical societies, from rule of law societies, and from truth-telling societies. And contrary to dogma, the evidence is that immigrants from these cultures are not adapting to the (a) absolute nuclear family (b) meritocracy (c) self-supporting productivity (d) minimal statism, (d) civic society, (e) common language, that was what was required of immigrants in order to participate in the american dream of having land so that one could control one’s destiny. WIthout those norms and habits, america has evolved from a polity of ideas, to a simple empire of increasing totalitarianism as the productive classes are slowly farmed to service the unproductive classes, and single motherhood and requisite poverty of single motherhood, has now reach near majority status. Thousands of years of suppressing single motherhood and its endemic poverty and dependency have been reversed in less than a century. 3) ECONOMIC TRUTH vs MORAL JUSTIFICATION Economic history is the only form of truth we can extract from the past. Humans justify their wants, given the conditions that they live under. This article is not much different from ‘god wills it’ because its arguments are allegorical and moral, with a thin veneer of rationalism. Whereas a scientists would look at the economy, the incentives, and demonstrated human behavior and dismantle the authors entire line of argument as a series of childlike justifications of pre-cognitive, non rational, counter-productive human cognitive biases – just as easily as he could dismantle the composition of a rock by mass spectrometry, and just as accurately. The truth is quite different. Humans act as tribes, and these tribes make best use of the circumstances that they can to increase their status and reproductive ability. SOme of theses strategies are successful (rapid population expansion of poor peoples) and some are unsuccessful (progressive status seeking at the expense of child bearing). Time determines winners, not words. Words are used to deceive. We deceive in order to steal. The only true words are operational words. Everything else is analogy. And almost all analogy is a lie.

  • More On Salon’s “Coming Apart” Article (Response 2)

    MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2 DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE 1) NATION: A ‘nation’ describes a body of people with similar genetic, linguistic, cultural, normative, and religious properties. When we discuss a diverse populace we do not use the term nation, we use the term EMPIRE. All diverse states must be either federations(voluntary and excitable) or empires (involuntary and non-exitable). If a diverse body of people contains a minority that cannot succeed then it is an empire. China is an empire. America is an empire. Labeling the USA as a nation is a dishonest attempt to label a heterogeneous voluntary polity with the legitimacy of a homogenous nation state, when in fact, it is merely a heterogeneous empire with a record of violence to oppress attempts at secession. 2) MORAL AND “CHOICE” RATHER THAN ECONOMIC AND “POSSIBLE” ARGUMENTS —“Yet somehow the republic kept experiencing what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom,” thanks only partly to the fortuitous confluence of two oceans’ protection, a vast continent’s ever-alluring frontier and unending streams of aspiring immigrants:”— Lets not be dishonest here, and cast this as a moral argument. The reason for American economic success is that the colonists used british weapons and might to conquer a continent, then steal that continent for themselves. Then sell it off to immigrants, and profit from it. It has been the most profitable conquest and sale of a territory in history. Even today, for all intents and purposes, the american economy consists largely of the housing business. As the housing business goes, so does the american economy. The problem is that we have run out of immigrants from high trust societies, from nuclear family societies, from empirical societies, from rule of law societies, and from truth-telling societies. And contrary to dogma, the evidence is that immigrants from these cultures are not adapting to the (a) absolute nuclear family (b) meritocracy (c) self-supporting productivity (d) minimal statism, (d) civic society, (e) common language, that was what was required of immigrants in order to participate in the american dream of having land so that one could control one’s destiny. WIthout those norms and habits, america has evolved from a polity of ideas, to a simple empire of increasing totalitarianism as the productive classes are slowly farmed to service the unproductive classes, and single motherhood and requisite poverty of single motherhood, has now reach near majority status. Thousands of years of suppressing single motherhood and its endemic poverty and dependency have been reversed in less than a century. 3) ECONOMIC TRUTH vs MORAL JUSTIFICATION Economic history is the only form of truth we can extract from the past. Humans justify their wants, given the conditions that they live under. This article is not much different from ‘god wills it’ because its arguments are allegorical and moral, with a thin veneer of rationalism. Whereas a scientists would look at the economy, the incentives, and demonstrated human behavior and dismantle the authors entire line of argument as a series of childlike justifications of pre-cognitive, non rational, counter-productive human cognitive biases – just as easily as he could dismantle the composition of a rock by mass spectrometry, and just as accurately. The truth is quite different. Humans act as tribes, and these tribes make best use of the circumstances that they can to increase their status and reproductive ability. SOme of theses strategies are successful (rapid population expansion of poor peoples) and some are unsuccessful (progressive status seeking at the expense of child bearing). Time determines winners, not words. Words are used to deceive. We deceive in order to steal. The only true words are operational words. Everything else is analogy. And almost all analogy is a lie.

  • MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2 DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE 1

    MORE ON COMING APART : SALON’S ARTICLE : RESPONSE 2

    DECEPTIONS IN THIS ARTICLE

    1) NATION: A ‘nation’ describes a body of people with similar genetic, linguistic, cultural, normative, and religious properties. When we discuss a diverse populace we do not use the term nation, we use the term EMPIRE. All diverse states must be either federations(voluntary and excitable) or empires (involuntary and non-exitable). If a diverse body of people contains a minority that cannot succeed then it is an empire. China is an empire. America is an empire. Labeling the USA as a nation is a dishonest attempt to label a heterogeneous voluntary polity with the legitimacy of a homogenous nation state, when in fact, it is merely a heterogeneous empire with a record of violence to oppress attempts at secession.

    2) MORAL AND “CHOICE” RATHER THAN ECONOMIC AND “POSSIBLE” ARGUMENTS

    —“Yet somehow the republic kept experiencing what Lincoln called “a new birth of freedom,” thanks only partly to the fortuitous confluence of two oceans’ protection, a vast continent’s ever-alluring frontier and unending streams of aspiring immigrants:”—

    Lets not be dishonest here, and cast this as a moral argument. The reason for American economic success is that the colonists used british weapons and might to conquer a continent, then steal that continent for themselves. Then sell it off to immigrants, and profit from it. It has been the most profitable conquest and sale of a territory in history.

    Even today, for all intents and purposes, the american economy consists largely of the housing business. As the housing business goes, so does the american economy. The problem is that we have run out of immigrants from high trust societies, from nuclear family societies, from empirical societies, from rule of law societies, and from truth-telling societies. And contrary to dogma, the evidence is that immigrants from these cultures are not adapting to the (a) absolute nuclear family (b) meritocracy (c) self-supporting productivity (d) minimal statism, (d) civic society, (e) common language, that was what was required of immigrants in order to participate in the american dream of having land so that one could control one’s destiny. WIthout those norms and habits, america has evolved from a polity of ideas, to a simple empire of increasing totalitarianism as the productive classes are slowly farmed to service the unproductive classes, and single motherhood and requisite poverty of single motherhood, has now reach near majority status. Thousands of years of suppressing single motherhood and its endemic poverty and dependency have been reversed in less than a century.

    3) ECONOMIC TRUTH vs MORAL JUSTIFICATION

    Economic history is the only form of truth we can extract from the past. Humans justify their wants, given the conditions that they live under. This article is not much different from ‘god wills it’ because its arguments are allegorical and moral, with a thin veneer of rationalism. Whereas a scientists would look at the economy, the incentives, and demonstrated human behavior and dismantle the authors entire line of argument as a series of childlike justifications of pre-cognitive, non rational, counter-productive human cognitive biases – just as easily as he could dismantle the composition of a rock by mass spectrometry, and just as accurately.

    The truth is quite different. Humans act as tribes, and these tribes make best use of the circumstances that they can to increase their status and reproductive ability. SOme of theses strategies are successful (rapid population expansion of poor peoples) and some are unsuccessful (progressive status seeking at the expense of child bearing). Time determines winners, not words.

    Words are used to deceive.

    We deceive in order to steal.

    The only true words are operational words.

    Everything else is analogy.

    And almost all analogy is a lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 10:54:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY AND TRIBALISM Dude, I do not think of people’s race except in descri

    ARISTOCRACY AND TRIBALISM

    Dude, I do not think of people’s race except in descriptive terms, the same way I point out the color of a shirt, car or house when describing it. There are great men. If I have to think of the person’s race to determine if they are great men, then they aren’t. Either a man carries his water or he doesn’t. His race doesn’t matter. If he makes it matter, then unfortunately I have to make it matter too.

    One of the reasons that I find Aristocracy so appealing, is that it’s appealing to EVERY TRIBE out there. It’s GOOD FOR ALL tribes. It doesn’t matter if this tribe or that tribe has better or worse individuals. What matters is that aristocracy can construct the educational and commercial order necessary for that tribe to participate in the global economy.

    The only reason race is a problem, is the denial of it, and the fantasy that all our tribes are equal. They aren’t any more equal than families are equal or classes are equal. We’re just not equal in our traits. But we are equal in the market where we are anonymous and invisible to one another, and equal in our interests in helping one another.

    Aristocracy around the world is the same. It’s the bottom 3/4 of any tribe that is materially different, and its in their interests and possibly in mankind’s interest to be genetically different.

    The only reason to desire large numbers is to conquer people or colonize people according to your favorite biases.

    I can’t for the life of me understand how the world would not be better constructed of 5M person city states rather than 1 billion person empire-states, except that big states can conduct bigger wars.

    If the head of tribe/state X race Y talks to the head of tribe/state A race B get together it probably will work out just fine if they want to conduct a trade. But the minute tribe C tries to increase its dominion nothing good comes out of it except war.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-04 15:00:00 UTC

  • Aristocracy and Tribalism, vs Democracy and Racism

    [D]amn it. I do not think of people’s race except in descriptive terms, the same way I point out the color of a shirt, car or house when describing it. There are great men. If I have to think of the person’s race to determine if they are great men, then they aren’t. Either a man carries his water or he doesn’t. His race doesn’t matter. If he makes it matter, then unfortunately I have to make it matter too. One of the reasons that I find Aristocracy so appealing, is that it’s appealing to EVERY TRIBE out there. It’s GOOD FOR ALL tribes. It doesn’t matter if this tribe or that tribe has better or worse individuals. What matters is that aristocracy can construct the educational and commercial order necessary for that tribe to participate in the global economy. The only reason race is a problem, is the denial of it, and the fantasy that all our tribes are equal. They aren’t any more equal than families are equal or classes are equal. We’re just not equal in our traits. But we are equal in the market where we are anonymous and invisible to one another, and equal in our interests in helping one another. [A]ristocracy around the world is the same. It’s the bottom 3/4 of any tribe that is materially different, and its in their interests and possibly in mankind’s interest to be genetically different. The only reason to desire large numbers is to conquer people or colonize people according to your favorite biases. I can’t for the life of me understand how the world would not be better constructed of 5M person city states rather than 1 billion person empire-states, except that big states can conduct bigger wars. If the head of tribe/state X race Y talks to the head of tribe/state A race B get together it probably will work out just fine if they want to conduct a trade. But the minute tribe C tries to increase its dominion nothing good comes out of it except war.

  • Aristocracy and Tribalism, vs Democracy and Racism

    [D]amn it. I do not think of people’s race except in descriptive terms, the same way I point out the color of a shirt, car or house when describing it. There are great men. If I have to think of the person’s race to determine if they are great men, then they aren’t. Either a man carries his water or he doesn’t. His race doesn’t matter. If he makes it matter, then unfortunately I have to make it matter too. One of the reasons that I find Aristocracy so appealing, is that it’s appealing to EVERY TRIBE out there. It’s GOOD FOR ALL tribes. It doesn’t matter if this tribe or that tribe has better or worse individuals. What matters is that aristocracy can construct the educational and commercial order necessary for that tribe to participate in the global economy. The only reason race is a problem, is the denial of it, and the fantasy that all our tribes are equal. They aren’t any more equal than families are equal or classes are equal. We’re just not equal in our traits. But we are equal in the market where we are anonymous and invisible to one another, and equal in our interests in helping one another. [A]ristocracy around the world is the same. It’s the bottom 3/4 of any tribe that is materially different, and its in their interests and possibly in mankind’s interest to be genetically different. The only reason to desire large numbers is to conquer people or colonize people according to your favorite biases. I can’t for the life of me understand how the world would not be better constructed of 5M person city states rather than 1 billion person empire-states, except that big states can conduct bigger wars. If the head of tribe/state X race Y talks to the head of tribe/state A race B get together it probably will work out just fine if they want to conduct a trade. But the minute tribe C tries to increase its dominion nothing good comes out of it except war.

  • “Surely you understand how individualists might view your little eugenics projec

    —“Surely you understand how individualists might view your little eugenics project as pretty unworkable, fucked and backwards, don’t you”—

    I don’t have a eugenics project, I make the argument that at some point in your chain of reasoning you must have a means of making judgements between one set of preferences and another, and that the progressive preference is dysgenic. To warn against dysgenia is very different from conducting eugenia.

    I do not see the political reason for redistributing from the middle class to the lower class if this constructs dysgenia that inhibits the formation of the high trust society which is necessary for the standard of living that allows for redistribution. In other words, i’m making an argument against a logical fallacy. This might seem to you as if I am making a sentimental argument,b ecause you argue largely sentimentally. But I don’t. I might actually be largely incapable of it.

    Most of my arguments are in the general vein of pointing out the fallacy of the libertarian and classical liberal, and progressive canons that do not account for the problem of trust, intelligence, and impulsivity in the construction of a polity capable of constant innovation necessary to stay ahead of both the genetic red queen, the malthusian red queen, and the technological red queen, and how those three red queens must be defeated in order to preserve economic prosperity that allows us to have whatever nonsensical social order we choose.

    I suspect that this argument is not obvious to you and most others, but that is my fundamental argument and the insight I am trying to incorporate into political science, political economy, economics, and philosophical ethics.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-04 13:28:00 UTC