Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • DEMOCRACY, KANT, ROUSSEAU, MARX, ERRORS AND FAMILY My ambition, like many that o

    DEMOCRACY, KANT, ROUSSEAU, MARX, ERRORS AND FAMILY

    My ambition, like many that of many others, is to find a resolution to the problem of political conflict between and within heterogeneous groups – which seems to be a barrier to our happiness and prosperity.

    Since Postmodern thought has become the religion of the state, it’s useful if we study influential works of Rousseau, Kant and Marx.

    MARX

    Interestingly enough, we find that only Marx dealt with material reality, even if an impossible economy, while Rousseau an impossible morality, and Kant an impossible philosophy.

    Marx is most interesting. His logical failures were at least understandable:

    (a) the labor theory of value was an error, because it was an impossibility. Value is subjective, and objectively only known at the point of exchange, and must be so. (Locke making the same mistake);

    (b) Consequently he failed to understand the problem of prices and incentives in organizing a division of labor. (He was not alone.) And;

    (c) He conflated the problem of alienation from work, with the problem of alienation from membership in a group, drawing the emotions from the second to justify the first.

    (d) He didn’t grasp that mass production is only valuable in the service of consumer wants (which is where capitalism often fails to satisfy our reason: it satisfies consumer wants, not what is ‘good or necessary’ in the abstract sense.)

    These failures were catastrophic, and he built his entire edifice on misplaced emotions, misplaced causes, and impossible means and ends.

    Our feelings are reactions to changes in state both of present and future. And the human mind excels at conflation, and is weak at causal discrimination. It is easy for people to make these mistakes, and Marx was not immune to them. While it is true that working on an expensive pair of shoes if you can’t own one can be alienating, the fact that one can eventually afford something other than them is something else entirely. If one can drive a used ford mustang by working on a luxury BMW, when the difference is merely signaling, it seems difficult to say that one has moral right to status signals.

    The problem with our feelings is that we don’t live in tribes. Our feelings originated when we could have some idea of our place in the family and the world. We still seek it. All of us. The problem is the only information system we operate by outside of the family is prices and it’s exasperating: prices, unlike family, don’t care about us. So capitalism is alienating, yes. But Marx misplaced the source of alienation. Because it’s not possible to obtain the same feeling of cause and effect in a vast division of knowledge and labor, that it is as a craftsman. Thats’ why so many people practice hobby crafts.

    ROUSSEAU

    Rousseau actually doesn’t say anything more meaning than “I was cast out by my family and I want a means of survival as an outcast, so that I can experience eternal childhood.” He tries to recreate the obligations of the family for all of society. Which is what we all want – instinctually. The problem is people don’t act that way if they aren’t homogenous in family structure, and mythos. So, under heterogeneity there can be no ‘general will’, as we see from current political polarity.

    KANT

    Kant tries desperately, to recreate the protestant church by rational rather than mystical means. Not only does he fail, but he tells us that we can never understand reality – the most anti-scientific ideology in history, second only in harm to Zoroaster and Abraham.

    PERSON, FAMILY, TRIBE, and PRODUCTION

    The data appears to universally demonstrate that extended families who eschew marriage of relations develop both high trust and redistributive morality. It appears that people who do not do this, do not, and experience high corruption.

    As diversity of any kind increases (particularly of family structure) morality changes with it, and disparate family models compete with different moral codes. Signaling is used by groups to demonstrate moral affiliation, and trust declines. (just the data. That’s how it is.)

    This explains why northern european countries are redistributive: they are highly related, homogenous extended families, with small political structures. So they do not feel ‘alienated’ from their labor under capitalism. Whereas transitional families do. ie: Marx got it wrong. Capitalism isn’t alienating if you’re a tribe. It is if you’re alone.

    Despite the fact that the vast number of social cognitive biases we evolved with lie to us about the similarity of our thoughts, and the Dunning Krueger effect prevents us from discovering it. We always believe we are ‘the average person’ or ‘in the top 20%’. But neither is true. And all but a few are competent to make that assessment, and those that are, underrate their competence.

    Democracy is a familial process – for use with Kin. It can be used to choose which of the priorities is highest among people with similar interests. But it cannot choose between competing interests without conquest of one group by another. That is purely logical. And that is what the evidence has shown us.

    As such alienation CAN ONLY be a product of inclusion or exclusion from the commons of production that we call a family. Where a family has some maximum size before interests are no longer common. A social contract always exists. It is called ‘norms’: manners, ethics and morals. And they vary by family structure. And family structure is determined by the means of production, whether that be informational, industrial, agrarian, or hunter gatherer.

    As such I am fairly sure that diversity and scale are contrary to both any social contract, and any desire to prevent alienation. And Kant’s contribution is just another iteration of mysticism.

    Smith and Hume were right. And the conservatives were right: democracy across any variation in interests, is just the slow road to dictatorship.

    Cheers.

    (eh… not a fan of comparative religion. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-18 07:11:00 UTC

  • OF DIFFERENT REGIONS OF AMERICA AND HOW THEY AFFECT VOTING

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/maps-of-the-american-nations/ANCESTRY OF DIFFERENT REGIONS OF AMERICA AND HOW THEY AFFECT VOTING

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 09:42:00 UTC

  • “Libertarian Moral Diversity Denialism” Increases in wealth under manorialism an

    “Libertarian Moral Diversity Denialism”

    Increases in wealth under manorialism and the forcible ban on intermarriage, forced a shift from kindreds to lineages, which in turn forced a shift towards nuclear families. As a side effect there was a delay in marriage and reproduction, more assortive mating (romance), the extension of the kin ethic to all potential family members.

    Property is inseparable from the nuclear family. Because property gives males control over breeding. You can add women to the economy. You either can add them to the voting pool, OR you can undermine the nuclear family and assortive mating, through child support, alimony, and redistribution. But you can’t do both and keep property rights. Property is the antithesis of the female reproductive strategy. The feminists are right, which is why the feminists and the socialists are allies. Or rather, the feminists give the socialists ethical air cover.

    But if women can vote to control their reproduction and at the same time control the productivity of males through political expropriation, then you will NEVER EVER have the institution of private property. EVER.

    Property was created by the application of organized violence. It put reproduction in control of the male. And eventually led to eugenic reproduction.

    If there is anything that puts a stake in the heart of libertarian hyper-individualism (moral diversity denial) then that’s it.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-11 14:26:00 UTC

  • IDENTITY: FROM ENGLISH TO BRITISH TO AMERICAN TO DISASPORIC – TO EXTINCT. (Re-Po

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2012/01/13/changes-in-identity/CHANGING IDENTITY: FROM ENGLISH TO BRITISH TO AMERICAN TO DISASPORIC – TO EXTINCT.

    (Re-Post)

    I made an unfortunate choice of terms when I started working on this theme. The idea I was trying to communicate was that the corporeal states that we have made with our extended family – our ‘race’ of the English people, have become the instrument of our extermination as a nation, a culture, a tradition, a people, a collection of tribes, and an extended family.

    We are subjects of various corporations. We are property. Farm animals. But we are no longer a people in the sense that we have the fortress of a nation state that we use to advance the interests of our extended family.

    Instead we are prisoners of the monstrous empires our family created. Those empires have become, as all empires must, corporations – organizations of financial rather than genetic interest. And that set of corporations is slowly forcing our extinction as a people in order to perpetuate the interests of the employees of the corporation itself.

    At the time I used the term ‘englishman’, the loading of which I didn’t really understand. I meant that I wanted to return to my rights as an Englishman, in the ancient sense of the word. Meaning: personal sovereignty: meaning property rights to myself and my possessions.

    And by sovereignty, I mean that I don’t want to be a farm animal. I am willing to sacrifice for my family. For my extended family. For my tribe. For my people. For my culture. That is always in my interest.

    But I am not wiling to be farmed for the benefit of a corporation at the expense of my genetic and cultural heritage.

    This is nothing more than killing off a herd to feed another herd.

    Nothing more.

    The state is the instrument of our extermination. What is the difference between a Death Camp and the American or British Governments except the time frame that they use to cause our extinction?

    There isn’t any.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 05:53:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION (This is an outline of the proper

    PROPERTARIANISM AND MULTI-CULTURAL IMMIGRATION

    (This is an outline of the propertarian case against multiculturalism. )

    People are different from livestock, goods, services, technologies and recipes – unless they’re slaves that is. I can keep, slaughter or abandon livestock, choose to consume or ignore goods and services, use or ignore technologies and recipes. And immigrants consume opportunity, commons, norms, traditions and laws by competing with them. any norm that increases high trust is an increase in shareholder assets. Any that doesn’t is a loss of shareholder assets.

    Im a libertarian. But any group with the same family structure, norms, values and myths, indistinguishable from kin is a corporation for the purpose of shared production and reproduction in a race against the red queen: the dark forces of time, ignorance and malthusian limits.

    And the introduction of competitors is just theft of shareholder assets. Any economic benefit produced independent of the impact on high trust norms is noise, not signal, and simply a means of using positivism to obscure theft and involuntary transfer from one group to another against their wishes.

    We compete in the market for goods and services despite in-group (in-kin) competition for resources as universally morally objectionable.

    Immigration without adoption of language, norms, family structure, myths, traditions, values, laws, is not non-neutral. It is a high cost. High trust norms that facilitate risk taking in the production of goods an services are the highest cost infrastructure that any group can possess.

    Immigration without conformity, and voting prior to conformity, is in fact, theft. It is violent conquest by the use of the violence of the state against the shareholders in the corporation of high trust norms.

    This isn’t allegory. This is just logical necessity, supported with difficult to measure but empirically demonstrable fact.

    Immigration into a high trust society without mandatory and managed normative enforcement is simply systemic theft and the destruction of cultural (human) capital. Immigration of people into a high trust society of people who share those values is just an increase in kin, and only a net negative if it affects the wages of existing shareholders.(Citizens).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-27 14:51:00 UTC

  • CONTINENTAL COMPETITION BETWEEN EUROPEANS AND ASIANS? So Northern Europeans were

    http://universitypressaudiobooks.com/detail.php/281THE CONTINENTAL COMPETITION BETWEEN EUROPEANS AND ASIANS?

    So Northern Europeans were the First Americans, and were wiped out by the First Nations who invaded from Asia? Then Europeans returned and reconquered the Asians? Now the Asians are re-invading north america and re-conquering the Northern Europeans?

    Europeans arrive in 20,000 and are Exterminated by: (8,000 years)

    Asians who arrive in 12,000 and are Conquered by: (10,000 years)

    Europeans who arrive in 1500 who are Conquered by: (700 years)

    Asians/North-Africans who arrive in 2000 conquered by ? (?)

    My dear Amanda hated (and I assume still hates) white people with a passion. I kind of think that in the end, white people lose. ‘Cause technology is very useful for a small group to use to keep the hordes at bay, or to conquer the hordes. But over time, he who breeds wins, and we don’t breed much. It’s that simple.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-26 04:34:00 UTC

  • CHINESE NATURAL EUGENICS – AND THE BRITISH PARALLEL “…although just 1 percent

    CHINESE NATURAL EUGENICS – AND THE BRITISH PARALLEL

    “…although just 1 percent of American high-school graduates each year have ethnic Chinese origins, surname analysis indicates that they currently include nearly 15 percent of the highest-achieving students, a performance ratio more than four times better than that of American Jews, the top-scoring white ancestry group.”

    “…the enormous population growth of recent centuries had gradually caught up with and overtaken China’s exceptionally efficient agricultural system, reducing the lives of most Chinese to the brink of Malthusian starvation; and these pressures and constraints were believed to be reflected in the Chinese people. For example, Stoddard wrote: … Winnowed by ages of grim elimination in a land populated to the uttermost limits of subsistence, the Chinese race is selected as no other for survival under the fiercest conditions of economic stress. At home the average Chinese lives his whole life literally within a hand’s breadth of starvation. Accordingly, when removed to the easier environment of other lands, the Chinaman brings with him a working capacity which simply appalls his competitors.”

    LIKE WE USED TO BE

    Manorialism was little different from the Chinese experience. But within 150 years we have redistributed our median IQ from being equal to that of the Ashkenazim to the mean.

    The puritan ethic was the natural product of needing to demonstrate fitness in order to gain access to land. And access to land meant access to reproduction.

    We not only have no criteria for reproduction now. We have inverted it so that the lower the criteria the more we can reproduce. And worse, that we have eliminated the criteria for voting.

    QUOTES

    “During the second half of the 20th century, ideological considerations largely eliminated from American public discourse the notion that many centuries of particular circumstances might leave an indelible imprint upon a people. But with the turn of the new millennium, such analyses have once again begun appearing in respectable intellectual quarters.

    “The most notable example of this would surely be A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark’s fascinating 2007 analysis of the deep origins of Britain’s industrial revolution, which was widely reviewed and praised throughout elite circles, with New York Times economics columnist Tyler Cowen hailing it as possibly “the next blockbuster in economics” and Berkeley economist Brad DeLong characterizing it as “brilliant.”

    “Although Clark’s work focused on many different factors, the one that attracted the greatest attention was his demographic analysis of British history based upon a close examination of individual testaments. Clark discovered evidence that for centuries the wealthier British had left significantly more surviving children than their poorer compatriots, thus leading their descendents to constitute an ever larger share of each generation. Presumably, this was because they could afford to marry at a younger age, and their superior nutritional and living arrangements reduced mortality rates for themselves and their families. Indeed, the near-Malthusian poverty of much ordinary English life during this era meant that the impoverished lower classes often failed even to reproduce themselves over time, gradually being replaced by the downwardly mobile children of their financial betters. Since personal economic achievement was probably in part due to traits such as diligence, prudence, and productivity, Clark argued that these characteristics steadily became more widespread in the British population, laying the human basis for later national economic success.”

    (FROM: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/)

    YOU GET WHAT YOU ASK FOR

    You just get all the consequences along with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-25 12:01:00 UTC

  • ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION NIT If you and I are in the same community and we operate by

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION NIT

    If you and I are in the same community and we operate by the same code, we can use the law to resolve our conflict peacefully. If we are at war, then that isn’t possible. If our legal codes are incompatible, that isnt possible. So if my legal code says I an conquer primitive, illiterate, stone-age people in order to gain territory before one of the other competing nations conquers the illiterate stone age people in order to obtain their land, and my people will not prosecute me for it or they permit it, then it is by definition LEGAL.

    You might confuse illegal with immoral. But that would require that you define MORAL. Because MORAL rules among the tribal people were pretty freaking terrible.

    The ‘LAW’ at that time, was that you could conquer people who were ‘savages’. And they did. It was legal.

    Now, you could in fact, argue that lower classes have an unwritten law, or a moral obligation, that they can conquer others by waves of invasion, just as the whites conquered their ancestors by waves of invasion.

    And that’s true. But the question is not between members of the invaders and the population, it’s between members of the population who WANT the invaders and those that DON”T WANT the invaders.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-23 12:56:00 UTC

  • DIALOG ON RACE WITH CLINTON : CIRCULAR LOGIC Listen. I know that solving the pro

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlEIPfb_WoA DIALOG ON RACE WITH CLINTON : CIRCULAR LOGIC

    Listen. I know that solving the problem of race is a goal of monopolistic government.

    But there are those of us who want to solve the problem of monopolistic government even if it doesn’t solve the problem of race.

    The difference between these two factors is only whether the people in government think their goal is of greater priority than the goal of those of us whose priority is freedom from monopolistic government.

    Race is a problem only because of government.

    ALthough, since most social problems are caused by government prohibiting natural economic and social behavior to play out through voluntary exchange, the fact that government tries to fix the problem it creates is both illogical and impossible.

    The way to solve the race problem is to eliminate race from government, and hopefully to eliminate government as we currently understand it: a territorial monopoly that uses violence at the whim of a predatory bureaucracy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwlEIPfb_Wo&list=TL2UE0Zb0nryc

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 12:00:00 UTC

  • CUTE “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy”

    CUTE

    “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 10:06:00 UTC