Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • SOCIAL CAPITAL : THE CONSERVATIVES : HOMOGENEITY=TRUST The conservative vision o

    SOCIAL CAPITAL : THE CONSERVATIVES : HOMOGENEITY=TRUST

    The conservative vision of man, is that he is a wild beast that must be tamed through constant training, and adhere to social structures that encourage his good behavior – particularly marriage. In the Mormon community for example, I have often heard is “An unmarried male between 17 and 22 is a threat to society.”

    But this is incorrect really. It’s the negative statement, not the positive. The positive is provided by Fukuyama (better than all others I think) “..shared norms or values that promote social cooperation, instantiated in actual social relationships..”

    Again, that’s still distracting, because it doesn’t address the behavioral issue that they mean to develop: TRUST. Social capital is the set of shared norms, values, habits, traditions that facilitate cooperation by increasing TRUST. Trust meaning predictability of taking risk with persons outside of your family group, without fear of loss attributable to one party taking advantage of the other through deception (fraud, lying) or asymmetry of information (fraud by omission).

    The west is a high-trust society. It is actually the ONLY high trust society. It is so because westerners have outbred (protestants at least) such that they actually were an extended family, with very rigid norms, and as such adaptation to norms demonstrated trustworthiness and avoidance of them untrustworthiness.

    There is nothing different about trust in any given society other than how far it extends outside the family.

    SO, conservatives, although they cannot articulated it, are constantly engaged in the process of fighting to maintain the homogeneity of the absolute nuclear family, and a set of conformative rules around the absolute nuclear family, and particularly prevention of free riding and cheating, because these ‘bad behaviors’ reduce trust and the ability to form dynamic and frictionless relationships for cooperation and mutual benefit.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-10 05:39:00 UTC

  • WHAT THE H___ IS WRONG WITH MISES INSTITUTE? Rhetorical question. I know the ans

    WHAT THE H___ IS WRONG WITH MISES INSTITUTE?

    Rhetorical question. I know the answer.

    –Give. Up. On. The. Jewish. Model–

    It’s a proven failure. It hasn’t worked for the jews. It’s let do their persecution. The public hates it because they intuit correctly that it’s immoral. And logically it can’t work. We must pay high costs to hold land and create property rights, and Rothbard all but ignored moral costs, just like progressives do. Moral and social capital are the most important wealth that all material wealth drives from.

    I mean, are you stuck in 1965 or something? Beat the dead horse? Beat it some more? Do you feel that you’ve vanquished the dead horse?

    It’s like some kid with a paper hat and cardboard sword standing over his sister’s teddy bear. I mean, the family will clap at the charade and all, but you can’t really keep grasping at childhood faux heroism.

    Socialism is a non issue. Marxism is a non issue. We are facing state CORPORATISM, not some WW2 Era philosophy. Where marxists failed, Postmodernists and Totalitarian humanists have succeeded by redefining morality – even while consumer capitalism has succeeded.

    GIVE IT UP. ROTHBARD FAILED. JOIN THE 21ST CENTURY.

    Do you wanna know why you can’t raise money? Wrong century. The source of liberty was always and only aristocratic egalitarianism. They invented it the nurtured and evolved it. And they spread it around the world. Property is a construct. It is made. And it is made by an armed militia who demands it at the point of a blade or the barrel of a gun.

    But it wasn’t articulated,it wasn’t written down as a system, which is why it remained dynamic. And Aristocratic peoples (conservatives) still don’t understand it.

    No high-trust people desirous of liberty will ever accept Rothbard’s ethics. EVER, because they are in fact, the immoral ethics of the high-fraud low-trust society. PERIOD. They are the ethics of the bazaar and the ghetto. It’s an outright lie, and now a demonstrated empirical falsehood, that market forces are sufficient to suppress fraud, fraud by omission, externalization of costs, free riding and various rent seeking schemes too numerous to mention.

    MOVE FORWARD. LEAVE THE LOW TRUST SOCIETY BEHIND.

    I moved on because I realized it’s not possible to help you.

    You need to move on too, before you can’t raise a dime.

    The market has tested and discarded the ideology.

    The market has proven it a failure.

    Move on.

    Otherwise thirty years plus of hard work will have been wasted.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-09 11:54:00 UTC

  • YOU TELL WHAT TRIBES THESE STRANGERS ARE FROM?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268040/Francois-Brunelle-portraits-Photographer-sets-shoot-200-fascinating-portraits-strangers-look-like-TWINS.htmlCAN YOU TELL WHAT TRIBES THESE STRANGERS ARE FROM?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 08:58:00 UTC

  • YES, ITS GENETIC TOO, BUT THAT DOESN’T HELP US WITH INSTITUTIONS – JUST THE DESI

    YES, ITS GENETIC TOO, BUT THAT DOESN’T HELP US WITH INSTITUTIONS – JUST THE DESIRABILITY OF INSTITUTIONAL MODELS FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS.

    1)I don’t think that the genetic argument needs to be terribly complicated.

    (a) impulsivity is not a complex trait (gives time to consider)

    (b) activation is not a complex trait. (desire to obtain stimuli through action)

    (c) familial empathy is not a complex trait.(consider others as well as self)

    (d) intelligence IS a complex trait, but it can be more easily expressed with lower impulsivity and higher activation.

    2) liberty is uncommon and largely undesirable.

    The evidence is mounting that liberty is a north-sea-peoples trait. That in objective terms it is an aristocratic philosophy, intolerable to the masses.

    3) institutions should be genetically tolerant.

    The problem with democracy is that it is a MONOPOLY and as such it is a means of conquest of others by whatever majority exists. The virtue of the market is that it allows us all to get what we want one way or the other, and virtually assures it, as long as it is done in cooperation with others.

    Monopoly is bad everywhere, But everywhere it is created by the state.

    Federations that use the ‘government’ as a market for exchanges, and where the only monopoly that must exist, is private property rights, BETWEEN groups, is all that is necessary.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-08 07:01:00 UTC

  • So, basically, freeing up women by redistribution essentially recreates diversit

    So, basically, freeing up women by redistribution essentially recreates diversity (tribalism) in any society.

    If you do that you’re dead. And that seems to be what the data tells us for any civilization that fully employs its women.

    Ack.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 05:56:00 UTC

  • The Jewish Way : Insular Communities that survive in host countries. The Christi

    The Jewish Way : Insular Communities that survive in host countries.

    The Christian way : Use religion as a resistance movement

    The Pre-Christian Way : Violently impose freedom.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 09:38:00 UTC

  • THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM CHILD WAS THE CALIPHATE. WHY? “The endogamous [inbred]

    THE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM CHILD WAS THE CALIPHATE. WHY?

    “The endogamous [inbred] family is found predominantly in the middle east and north Africa” – Auke Rijpma and Sarah Carmichael “Testing Todd: global data on family characteristics” (2003)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-03 16:25:00 UTC

  • DIVERSITY IS A BAD THING. I KNOW. WE ALL KNOW NOW. PUTNAM IS RIGHT. But I can’t

    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/YES, DIVERSITY IS A BAD THING. I KNOW. WE ALL KNOW NOW. PUTNAM IS RIGHT.

    But I can’t tell what happens under monarchy, where there isn’t any access to political power, and everyone has to compete in the market rather than rent seek via politics.

    As far as I can tell, diversity of neighborhoods might not be problematic if there isn’t any ability to influence the state.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-01 23:31:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : COMPLIMENTS You know, in the States, if you’re meeting s

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : COMPLIMENTS

    You know, in the States, if you’re meeting some couple for dinner, it’s pretty much conventional to say “you look beautiful” or make some other compliment about the woman’s appearance or dress. At least, that’s how I was raised in New England. My sisters and mother beat into me the idea that you say something nice about a woman whenever possible.

    So last night I say to a woman here in Kiev, “You look beautiful”. To which she replies “I always look beautiful.” As if I was implying that tonight was a rarity.

    Now, Veronika has tried to explain this to me as a Ukrainian thing – its not just her. But I think most women I talk to here are just polite to me. I’m a crazy american after all. And I have that reputation here.

    Strangely, almost anything you say to a Ukrainian woman in complimentary form will not be just accepted as nicety, but often turned around into a perceived insult. I understand it’s just a means of preserving independence. And the women here are amazingly independent: they have to be.

    They also are pretty much aware that they’re the most amazing and beautiful women in the world, and so they hear a compliment differently. It’s like saying the sky is blue or something obvious of that nature.

    I don’t have a lot of insight to provide on this topic. Or, I don’t feel like getting all analytical over it. But it’s just one of those cultural things that’s fascinating: metaphysical value judgements that create the judgmental context for all communications.

    Humans are fascinating. 🙂

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-30 04:59:00 UTC

  • THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY INVENTS INBREEDING? (badly translated from the french by

    THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY INVENTS INBREEDING?

    (badly translated from the french by me)

    “It is the Athenian democracy who invents inbreeding.”

    “It is not case that patrilineal endogamy we find in the history of Mesopotamia and the Middle East is the oldest. The only explanation, is that it was invented by the Greeks, who also later dropped it. The first case of proven patrilineal endogamy is in Athens, at the time of the flowering of democracy in the fifth century.

    Initially, the cause of this movement is a bit racist civic folding of the Greek city that Robert Lowie called the “pride of race”. The original ethnic democracy. Equality in a body of citizens is not defined as a universal dream, as discussed in France, but compared to men outside, which equates to barbarians.

    It’s like the current Israeli democracy. Equality body of citizens, it is also the inequality of those who are outside. Equal citizens body based on the fact that all this is preferable in that is outside. We can see how the idea of inbreeding can leave it. American democracy is always white Democracy.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-29 16:52:00 UTC