Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • “WHY ARE 6M UKRAINIANS LESS IMPORTANT THAN 6M JEWS?” (from peter meyers) Alexand

    “WHY ARE 6M UKRAINIANS LESS IMPORTANT THAN 6M JEWS?”

    (from peter meyers)

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn on the 6 million Ukranians:

    {p. 15} This was a system which, in time of peace, artificially created a famine causing six million persons to die in the Ukraine between 1932 and 1933. They died on the very threshold of Europe.

    {p. 16} And Europe didn’t even notice it. The world didn’t even notice it. Six million persons!”

    – Alexander Solzhenitsyn, speech delivered in Washington on 30 June 1975. In Alexander Solzhenitsyn Speaks to the West (London: Bodley Head, 1978), pp. 15-16.

    Here are some scans of that book:

    1. the cover: http://mailstar.net/Solz-Speaks-cover.JPG

    2. p. 15 (gives 6 million figure): http://mailstar.net/Solz-Speaks-6m-Ukra-p15.JPG

    3. p. 16 (repeats 6 million figure): http://mailstar.net/Solz-Speaks-6m-Ukra-p16.JPG

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-04 02:08:00 UTC

  • “LET THE PEOPLE DIVIDE. LET OUR PEOPLE GO” (1. The error of the monotheism – equ

    “LET THE PEOPLE DIVIDE. LET OUR PEOPLE GO”

    (1. The error of the monotheism – equality and unity)

    (2. The error of the enlightenment: equality and universal aristocracy)

    (3. The truth of property, contract, and prices)

    LET THE PEOPLE DIVIDE. LET OUR PEOPLE GO.

    Rather than prosecute the false argument that ‘We’ have much in common: LET THE PEOPLE DIVIDE.

    Rulers take advantage of the false argument of the RELIGIOUS ERA: if we make claims of group interest, we can fool people into acting as if they are extended family.

    I should work on this argument a bit, because the enlightenment error of universalism, equality, and an aristocracy of everyone, is also dependent upon the monotheistic error of ‘a family of everyone’.

    Neither of these are true.

    Polytheism is superior to monotheism.

    Micro Polystatism is super to Macro-Monostatism.

    The problem of human cooperation is not moral or ethical or any other form of emotionally misleading, and intellectually false group membership.We do not need to create conceptual or moral homogeneity and equality in order to live happily and peacefully and prosperously together.

    The problem of human cooperation is technical, not preferential: PROPERTY, MONEY, and VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE.

    One cannot reason without logic.

    One cannot describe cause and consequence without narrative.

    One cannot create record and transport knowledge without writing.

    One cannot count and compare units without numbers,

    One cannot measure and compare spaces without operations and units.

    One cannot cooperate without property

    One cannot plan production, without prices.

    The market allows us to cooperate on means despite diverse ends.

    Government is just an organization for the purpose of providing decision making where no other technology exists for the purpose of decision making (direct voting).

    Legitimate government creates contracts : rights and obligations,

    Illegitimate government creates commands, and fraudulently markets them as ‘laws’.

    Government can facilitate cooperation in the market, or it facilitate rents on the market.

    A government that does other than:

    1) enforce contracts, where contracts are not constructible, or enforceable without property rights.

    2) facilitate exchanges via trade policy between classes in cases impossible to construct in the market without such trade facilitation of trade policy.

    3) Provide a means of insurance

    …obtains legitimacy by:

    4) Violence for the self preservation of the privilege of te bureaucracy.

    5) Justification under the religious era’s error of unity of interest

    6) Justification under the enlightenment’s error of equality, universalism, and

    However, this is a continuation of the technique of using repetition, obscurantism, complexity, and our natural cognitive biases, to deny us our ability and desire, to function as families, extended families and tribes, all of whom cooperate via the market.

    but instead of micro-governemtns for families, extended families and tribes, pooling interests for trade policy, insurance, and enforceability of contracts, we are forced under macro government, to give up our opportunity to trade and instead, forced to seek rents and free riding and our own freedom from the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-24 04:53:00 UTC

  • BETWEEN US AND NEANDERTHALS: 96 Genes. Immunity and Brain (ie: more suggestion o

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/entire-neanderthal-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US AND NEANDERTHALS:

    96 Genes. Immunity and Brain (ie: more suggestion of the Dopaninergenic theory has some legs)

    “Only 96 genes responsible for making proteins in cells are different between modern humans and Neanderthals. Intriguingly, some of the gene differences involve ones involved in both immune responses and the development of brain cells in people. Somewhere within these 96 genes may lay the answer to why Neanderthals and Denisovans became extinct.”

    I ALREADY KNOW WHY THEY WENT EXTINCT: WE ATE THEM.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-23 15:32:00 UTC

  • ARE LESS VIOLENT, BLACKS AND HISPANICS MORE VIOLENT. ANGLOS IN THE MIDDLE. That’

    http://memolition.com/2013/12/12/maps-of-seven-deadly-sins-in-america/GERMANS ARE LESS VIOLENT, BLACKS AND HISPANICS MORE VIOLENT. ANGLOS IN THE MIDDLE.

    That’s what this map shows. Blue areas are people of german descent.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 13:53:00 UTC

  • MORE MAP FOR THE CONQUERED “NATIONS” OF AMERICA How the empire rules us all. “On

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/76565/which-american-english-do-you-speak-this-map-shows-the-dialects-of-the-usaONE MORE MAP FOR THE CONQUERED “NATIONS” OF AMERICA

    How the empire rules us all.

    “One government to rule them all.

    One government to tax and fine them.

    One government to bring them all,

    And in tyranny, bind them.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-15 07:09:00 UTC

  • REGARDING BIG What if I can make an unassailable argument that anyone who respec

    REGARDING BIG

    What if I can make an unassailable argument that anyone who respects property rights, speaks the language, and adheres to basic manners, ethics, morals and norms, is in fact, entitled to some portion of the net proceeds of the overall marketplace?

    ‘Cause I can.

    BHL do not know how to construct such an argument from property rights. So they must rely on sentimental or utilitarian arguments. But it is quite possible to make an argument from property rights.

    The BIG cannot be constructed as a fixed benefit.

    I don’t like it. But it is possible to make that argument, and I am fairly sure that BIG, at the expense of a multitude of other programs, would in fact, produce libertarian ends.

    And I am quite sure that if the conservatives positioned a BIG in exchange for shutting down a whole host of services, that it is a political argument that could be sold.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-13 06:10:00 UTC

  • THE HBD MOVEMENT ATTRIBUTES TOO MUCH TO GENETICS I agree that genetics play an e

    THE HBD MOVEMENT ATTRIBUTES TOO MUCH TO GENETICS

    I agree that genetics play an enormous role in the biases of the polity. I disagree that we cannot create institutions that redirect those differences to mutually beneficial ends.

    What I disagree with, is that any system of property rights is severable from the reproductive strategy of the people in the population.

    Furthermore, I, unfortunately, agree with the eugenicists: redistribution so that the lower classes can outbreed the upper classes has no support in logic, morality, or history.

    We can pay them not to have children. But we cannot pay them to have children.

    THat’s what we do wrong.

    One child per couple who requires benefits, with loss of benefits, and imprisonment, for breaking it, is the only moral solution to the problem of reproduction by those whose reproduction decreases the ability of the middle and upper classes to reproduce.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 13:37:00 UTC

  • TRUST VS THE STATE 1) The lower the trust, the more demand for the state. 2) The

    TRUST VS THE STATE

    1) The lower the trust, the more demand for the state.

    2) The higher the trust, the lower the demand for the state.

    3) The more diverse, the lower the trust.

    4) Diversity creates demand for the state.

    Just how it is.

    DIVERSITY SPECTRUM

    ——————

    Self

    —Offspring

    —Family

    Desirability for Mating

    —Status Distance

    —Genetic Fitness

    —Genetic Distance

    Desirability for Cooperation

    —Reproductive Structure Distance (Family Type)

    —Normative Distance (culture, manners, ethics, morals, myths, traditions, rituals)

    —Resource Distance

    —Legal Distance

    Risk

    —Normative Competitor

    —Material Competitor

    —Material Displacer

    Danger

    —Destroyer

    —Conqueror

    —Murderer

    AN HOMOGENOUS EXTENDED FAMILY WITH LOW DIFFERENCE IN APPEARANCE, ABILITY, NORMS AND RESOURCES = HIGH TRUST.

    Everything from that point onward decreases trust in a population.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 10:15:00 UTC

  • “THE GREATER THE DIVERSITY THE MORE POWERFUL THE STATE” The potential capacity f

    “THE GREATER THE DIVERSITY THE MORE POWERFUL THE STATE”

    The potential capacity for advantageous mating determines the cooperation between groups.

    1) A weak state and a homogenous population = civil society.

    2) A strong state and a homogenous population = a redistributive society

    3) A strong state and a heterogeneous population = a tribal society (dysfunctional)

    4) A weak state and a heterogeneous population = cannot and does not exist.

    ________________:___Heterogeneous_____Homogenous___

    Weak State___________(conflict)____________Civil_________

    Strong State __________Tribal___________Redistributive___

    MEANS OF REPRODUCTIVE DIVERSITY

    1) Structure of Production (Economy)

    2) Size of Family Structure in Structure of Production (Family)

    3) Genetic Distance for the purpose of mate selection (Desirability)

    4) Metaphysical Distance for the purpose of decision making. (Culture)

    Note that family structure alone is sufficient to create the moral diversity that creates conflict. Also note that the greater the distance of the classes, the more the family structure must change to reflect them.

    The USA has a enormous genetic distance, and a wide set of family structures to support them.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-12 00:32:00 UTC

  • THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN JEWISH AND EUROPEAN PROTESTANT

    THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN JEWISH AND EUROPEAN PROTESTANT ETHICS

    Similarities between Ashkenazi and Northern European (Protestant) ethics: both the extended model of the jewish community, and the aristocratic ethics of the Northern European community, place onerous burdens on non-conforming, uncompetitive members, and force them out of the community where they will either reproduce elsewhere or reproduce poorly.

    Then eugenic result of these reproductive strategies is still evident in the Ashkenazi jewish population, and at least evident in the middle and upper classes of protestant civilization – although, if Lynn is correct, we protestants have lost intellectual parity with the jews over the past 150 years because we ceased our constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes and weakened our high investment parenting (and the state actively prohibits it via public education), while the jews continue their high investment parenting.

    Then major difference in these ethical systems is that the scope of Northern European (North Sea / Protestant) ethic contains the warrior constraints which have a higher standard of prohibition on externality than the Ashkenazi, which in turn has a higher standard of prohibition, and more outcasting than the eastern european, mediterranean, and middle eastern.

    1) Requirement of fully asymmetric information in an exchange.

    2) Requirement of warranty to prove symmetry of exchange.

    3) Prohibition against externalization of costs.

    4) Requirement for value added to goods.

    5) Prohibition on profit from disadvantage.

    In addition:

    6) Requirement of contribution to the physical commons.

    7) Requirement for militia service in exchange for membership.

    These ethical extensions are caused by the origins of these two peoples as an homogenous majority of land holders in the cast of northern europeans, and a homogenous minority of diasporic non-land holders in the case of the european jews. Majoritarian Militial Warriors and Minority of diasporic, unlanded traders develop very different needs.

    All ethical systems must reflect reproductive necessity. What is perhaps most interesting is that by the time we enter the 20th century, the difference between Scottish presbyterians and european jews was indistinguishable by other than trinket symbolism and surname.

    It was the introduction of eastern european jews that increased 20th century domestic friction, which is now, only three generations later, accommodating. I think McDonald has pretty much settled the case on this topic. It is what it is. We each need our reproductive strategies to survive.

    I get a little flack for my criticism of Rothbard’s ethics as the failed attempt to reconcile the ethics of european aristocratic egalitarian liberty with Jewish ethics of the diasporic peoples. But the point of my argument is a necessary one. I cannot repair the ethics of liberty without correcting the properties of those ethics by expanding those set of ethical constraints to reflect the aristocratic high trust society.

    Because it is that high trust society that makes northern europeans unique in the world.

    Just as I get quite a bit of flack for attacking the assumption that feminist ambitions can be perpetuated without the near universal adherence to the absolute nuclear family.

    Just as I get quite a bit of flack for attacking the libertarian movement as autistically blind to moral diversity, and our attempt to assert moral monopoly on human cooperation. Morals must reflect reproductive needs, at least within groups, even if the only moral constraint between groups is can bear no difference between private property rights.

    I just get flack for these arguments. But the fact is that they are simply true. Its just objective. Our reproductive strategies determine our ethical codes.

    I cannot recommend institutional solutions to the problem of cooperation in a morally heterogeneous polity absent a tyrannical state unless I make it also clear that these reproductives strategies are rational, and moral for their adherents. It is not rational that individuals should prefer strategies and moral codes that are against their reproductive interests.

    So, as always, I apologize in advance for the murder of sacred cows, but it’s necessary for mutual benefit.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-10 10:51:00 UTC