Curt Doolittle

Theme: Ethnoculture

  • @UmeshPatil @Hughman It is not racism to point out the truth. The west had the e

    http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/02/mitt_romney_is_living_every_social_scientists_nightmare @UmeshPatil @Hughman It is not racism to point out the truth. The west had the extraordinary luck to have the church forbid marriage to cousins, and to award women property rights. Combined with the manorial system, which required that a man demonstrate finess in order to obtain land to work, and therefore the ability to raise a family and reproduce, the west obtained the nuclear family, the work ethic, universalism, property rights, and a near absence of corruption endemic to all other human social orders. Culture matters. India’s power failed because corruption is endemic, and corruption is endemic because of familialism. Europeans are a dying culture because it turned on itself and lost its confidence after the world wars, and because feminism decreased the breeding rate of its women to below replacement levels and governments had to resort to immigration in order to maintain it’s intergenerational redistribution programs.And if that bothers you, race matters too. Because people demonstrably prefer to be around those who look like them, and the distribution of talents does differ between the races. Races might not matter if people did not aggregate and associate by race. But they do. Status signals are the human information system. And status signals are cheaper within group than across groups. So race matters.Many scientific realities are unpleasant. It is impolitic to discuss these realities. But they are still realities none the less. Choosing not to discuss them, is quite different from disbelieving them. One is a demonstration of manners. The other is a demonstration of ignorance.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-03 02:01:00 UTC

  • ACCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS: THE METAPHYSICS OF REACTIONARIES: AMISH VS HASSIDIM In

    ACCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS:

    THE METAPHYSICS OF REACTIONARIES:

    AMISH VS HASSIDIM

    In a coffee shop in Leavenworth. An Amish family, father, perhaps 60, mother about the same, and adult daughter perhaps 30, ordering iced mocha coconut coffee drinks with whipped cream. I didn’t take a photo, because I didn’t want to be rude. So description will have to do: they were dressed impeccably, and had nearly perfect, radiant, clear skin. The man was gentlemanly and spoke with a few other customers, asking about where they lived, and other friendly idle talk. The women were obviously avoiding eye contact and conversation.

    My own reaction was precognitive and involuntary: I treat these people with sacred reverence. They are the souls of the germanic peoples. Certainly more so than priests, public intellectuals, or politicians. Probably because there is no question as to the honesty of there commitment and no political art of persuasion we must defend ourselves from. They are a statement of truth, purely by their actions.

    Most of us with northern european heritage long for our medieval, agrarian, communal, and familial past, even as we celebrate our longer lives, greater health, lack of hunger, freedom from brutal physical labor, and insulation from violence. These people are the embodiment of the idea of our past, perhaps more so than the actuality of it.

    I suppose the Jews may think of their Hassidic sect with the same reverence. (Although as I understand it, opinions about the hassidim – particularly their overbreeding and communist dependence upon redistribution in Israel – like most opinions in the Jewish community, vary pretty widely.)

    Because I simply haven’t spent time thinking about this topic before, it’s pretty obvious that both reactionary sects represent the different world views of Germanic and Hebrew peoples: social actions and individual responsibility versus individual thoughts, and collectivism. Action versus mysticism, both wrapped in religious ritual and insular pacifism that protects their alternate reality from competition with the chaos of the modern world. This difference can be reduced to: the people of the land and action versus the people of the mind and words.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-25 14:31:00 UTC

  • Why Does Racism Exist And From Where Did It Originate?

    For a set of reasons:
    1) Mating selection is determined by both genetic markers (physical properties) and status signals (social properties).
    2) There are differences in desirability between the races due to different morphological attributes, despite the near universal human preference for a set of attributes. 
    3) There are different DISTRIBUTIONS of certain talents across the races. (linguistic intelligence, and spatial intelligence in particular.) This difference in distributions causes the development of different norms and preferences within groups, which in turn alters the complex signals we both observe and send.
    4) Because of this economy of signaling, Status Signals ‘within group’ are lower cost than status signals ‘across groups’. (Partly because we have just have higher familiarity within the group). Each of us is more likely to get more positive, and fewer negative status signals within group than across groups. And those signals are richer and more complex.
    5) These signals affect our relationships and the trust that can develop in them.  Where that trust is necessary for relaxed interaction, goal determination, task coordination, and risk taking.
    6) In the working and lower classes, external racial groups usually will work for less money or will displace them in their earning capacity and therefore also deprive them of status signals.  Racism is a means of forming political solidarity themselves, as well as with their elites, for the purpose of preserving their advantage – or gaining their advantage.
    7) In the middle and upper middle classes, racism is a vehicle for maintaining political power (law) and social power (norms) and assets (their own accumulated status signals) for themselves and their groups.

    This set of facts is demonstrated by our demonstrated universal preference to work (largely) and live (largely) with people who share our same ethnicity and social class. The data illustrates that preference over and over again.  In simple terms, we are ‘judged’ more easily, and therefore included more easily among those with whom we share physical, intuitive, conceptual, and habitual similarities. However, at the extremes, the very successful and prosperous tend to form a worldwide-class and the lower classes seek mates more opportunistically, and there are social signaling benefits to certain racial groups (a mating between a below average white woman and an above average black man may increase the social standing and quality of mates of both. So the racial norm is a majority-middle preference. 

    While there is a noticeable rise in the inbreeding going on between asians and whites,  women still seem to demonstrate an extraordinary preference for men within their race (men are less discriminating) of upwards of 80%.  But this preferences is a middle class statistic obtained from dating sites. And it becomes very hard to make the same statements about the lower classes outside of what’s stated in the census (about 15% intermarriage).  The reason is that some races are pretty indistinct (black/hispanic) because of high interbreeding already.

    I hope this was helpful. This is only a sketch of a complex topic. But it’s enough of a trail of bread crumbs that it might help answer your question.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-does-racism-exist-and-from-where-did-it-originate

  • CAPLAN FAILS TO JUSTIFY OPEN IMMIGRATION (*HIGHLY UN-PC PAINFUL TRUTH WARNING*)

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/06/six_theses_on_e.htmlBRYAN CAPLAN FAILS TO JUSTIFY OPEN IMMIGRATION

    (*HIGHLY UN-PC PAINFUL TRUTH WARNING*)

    1) Do a group of people have the right to exclusion? To deny trade, habitation, and spatial access, to others based upon some property of the others’ group?

    Moral norms, traditions, and even differences in language and ability impose a cost on groups. Morals are largely expressions of property rights, and differences in morals are expressions of conflicting property rights. Norms are a form of shareholder property in themselves. So differences in norms impose costs on both sides and in many cases constitute attempts at fraud and theft.

    For example, I regularly write about the difference between Bazaar Ethics and Warrior Ethics, and how externalities and implied warranty are a product of high trust warrior ethics and not a property of low trust Bazaar Ethics. And a high trust society is very rare, and very complicated to build. It’s also very productive and innovative. But it requires that sellers exhibit symmetrical transparency, be constrained from imposing external costs and required to provide limited warranty.

    While I’m a pretty big fan of Brian’s I just see this post on immigration as yet another attempt to express jewish cultural bias as a truth or moral principle when it’s just a byproduct of the fact that jews are a diasporic people with a small population and the memes, morals and narratives of a diasporic people that are unable to hold land, when land holding is necessary for the establishment of norms and formal institutions, and land holding is necessary in order to enforce the right of exclusion, in order to reduce the costs of cooperation.

    So no, immigration poses high costs on host countries and peoples where there is a high trust moral code including a requirement for symmetric honesty, warranty, and a prohibition on external involuntary transfers, a nuclear family, with a homogenous language.

    I realize that this is a painful truth. But it is a truth none the less.

    2) Secondly, norms are not governed as brian suggests by extreme examples. This is just faulty logic in the extreme. In fact, using extreme conditions as examples of norms is the source of most false criticism of moral statements using moral dilemmas – which turns morality into a victorian parlor game.

    I agree with Brian on a lot of things. But on this topic both his argument and it’s justification are nonsense. People have the right of excluding in both personal and political spheres. They must have it. They demonstrate it. And it’s the only way to force people to adopt high-trust norms.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-18 08:09:00 UTC

  • Why Are There Very Few Conservative Jewish People?

    I’ll give you the underlying answer, even if it might take a bit of contemplation for it to make sense.

    1) Minority peoples tend to be progressive. This has to do with the problem of ‘signaling’ (status) as well as access to opportunity and power. There  is nothing special about jewish progressivism other than they’re an exceptional minority, their exceptionalism is verbally oriented, (and western germanic culture is more technically oriented) so they have more impact on society because of their preference for and dominance in media.  There are plenty of conservative jews here and in Israel.  

    2) Conservatism in the USA, is the remnant of aristocratic agrarian manorialism, coupled with the anglo classical liberal political instituions, under a weak federal government we call ‘the church’.  It is a social and political strategy for a division of powers that can militarily hold land using weak forces. The west had to keep the ‘magian and totalitarian’ east at bay since the time of the Ancient Greeks – maybe earlier. So, Western moral content is structured to hold territory necessary for farming, even against superior numbers. By contrast, Judaism is a dasporic culture of merchants and traders and its moral content does not contain the same prescriptions as does aristocratic christianity (Germanized christianity).  The most obvious of these differences are a) the Bazaar exchange ethic vs the Warrior exchange ethic.  Whereby christians take account of external costs and jews do not.  b) The western concept of warranty is not present in the jewish ethic.  c) western universalism is unique in human history.  Jewish ethics are familial and tribal not universalist. 

    These are long held historical differences in the moral codes of the different societies.  There is some argument as to whether they have some biological basis to them. But that won’t be settled by science for decades yet.  The two societies operate on different principles. They are to some degree symbiotic. 

    You might consider reading Power and Weakness by Kagan. http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zs…  The weak are generally pacifist ad progressive and the strong are generally expansionist and conservative.  It is a natural human reaction to various circumstances.

    This may be a lot to grasp but these genetic, historical, environmental and strategic differences lead to the different biases between conservative christians and liberal jews.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-very-few-conservative-Jewish-people

  • The Village Voice Calls Me A Conservative (Right) And A Racist (Wrong).

    I supposed I should know better, but the Village voice is attacking me, and every other ‘right wing blogger’ for defending John Derbyshire.

    Curt Doolittle  … allowed as how “racism is just plain stupidity.” Nonetheless he explained that “African Americans FACTUALLY demonstrate African American distributions of IQ are FACTUALLY almost a full standard deviation lower than that of their white counterparts,” and that “whites used to be racist but the wars ended their comfort with self confidence. Blacks are racist at the bottom.”

    Doolittle also noted that black people are disproportionately represented in crime statistics. He did not consider their disproportionate representation in poverty statistics to be connected — that sort of thinking, we suppose, would conflict with the Austrian Libertarian tradition — but suggested that “aberrant behavior among minorities” in the U.S. is “tolerated under the principle of diversity and freedom of self expression.”  — The Village Voice

    To which I replied:

    Thank you for quoting me on this issue.  I was pretty reluctant to write about it.  It strikes me as odd that if I write something on fashion or gender relations, or racism, that it gets a lot of attention — my most popular article was when I stated that tattoos had gone out of style in the middle class.  But if I write something meaningful about political theory you can hear crickets.  So, I guess this kind of thing goes with the territory.

    But I have a few nits with your quote:

    1) Racism is just plain stupid. One cannot judge an individual by the properties of his class. Although one can judge a class by the properties of its individuals.

    2) Denying that we in the states have a racial issue is not stupid. It’s obvious, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I’lll avoid the detail of why we have a greater problem with race than our English and Canadian counterparts, but the fact that we do, is indicative of the problem. They can enforce behavioral norms, and our society has forbidden such pressure to conformity as the French impose.

    3) Denying that poverty is a symptom is not stupid either. You imply that I do not seem to appreciate this issue.  Acknowledging that the reason for poverty is not racism but IQ is not stupid either. It’s just what it is.  Acknowledging that the distribution of IQ varies among groups isn’t stupid either.

    5) I’m not advocating racism – that is an emotional construct. I”m saying that the suite of policy solutions that seek to solve the problem through educational commingling, and treating racial groups as homogenous in ability is simply HARMFUL to those at the bottom,  40% of whom are black. Even the genders are not homogenous. If we look at the data we should not start boys in school for a year after we start girls, and perhaps two years. That’s just one aspect of the Finnish model.  Instead, those troubled demographics need special attention. I’m appealing for special attention — ie: schools designed to teach something other than middle class whites and asians.  I can forgive you for not knowing my broader political position, and leaping to the conclusion you did. I’m just not sure I want to let the error go unanswered. And a look at the complexion of my family, which is a rainbow, should be enough to convince anyone of my personal disposition.

    6) Derbyshire was fired for speaking the truth in order to draw attention to the problem.  I”m not sure I think his argument is particularly useful. I am sure I don’t agree with his reasons or his solutions. But he was speaking the truth. If you are one of the deniers that thinks human IQ distributions are environmental rather than genetic, then you can get together with climate deniers and have a celebration.  But the matter is settled in the data. It’s settled in the profession.  And the dirty secret of the Human Genome project: we now know why. Social classes are genetically determined too. And capitalism’s fast meritocratic rotation makes these differences rapidly visible.

    So lets move beyond name calling and solve this problem.  We can solve it by throwing welfare money at it, or do what we’re doing and continue to see little progress, or we can understand that a very different school system is needed with far more support for a demographic that needs special care in order to fit successfully into society.  Because what we’re doing isn’t working.

    The race and class warfare prevents us from “Getting To Denmark” and building an egalitarian society. I don’t believe that society can be created with a 300M+ population like it can in a 5M population if  we have to rely on a government where consensus of belief is needed and where  the winner takes all.  And reorganizing our political institutions to accomodate for our impossibly complex diversity of opinion, desire, visions AND abilities, is what I work on full time.

    I don’t expect thanks for it. On the other hand, I have many faults, but I don’t think the one you’re attributing to me is one of them.  đŸ™‚

    Thanks

    Curt Doolittle

  • A Not So Funny, All Too True. Anti Immigration Cartoon

    A humorous anti-immigration cartoon.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AymhJheL4Jk?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360]

    My significant other, who is Meti (mixed native-american and white) has a pretty strong anti-white streak for this reason. And listening to her, I don’t suppose that white people will feel any differently about the minorities that outnumber them in the future.

  • John Derbyshire’s ‘The Talk’ For ‘White and Asian Parents’

    The Talk: Nonblack Version

    by John Derbyshire  April 05, 2012
    There is much talk about “the talk.”
    “Sean O’Reilly was 16 when his mother gave him the talk that most black parents give their teenage sons,” Denisa R. Superville of the Hackensack (NJ) Record tells us. Meanwhile, down in Atlanta: “Her sons were 12 and 8 when Marlyn Tillman realized it was time for her to have the talk,” Gracie Bonds Staples writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Leonard Greene talks about the talk in the New York Post. Someone bylined as KJ Dell’Antonia talks about the talk in The New York Times. Darryl Owens talks about the talk in the Orlando Sentinel. Yes, talk about the talk is all over. There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following. * * * * * * * * * * * * * (1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.
    “There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too.”
    (2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.) (3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white. (4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety. (5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths. In a population of forty million, you will find almost any human type. Only at the far, far extremes of certain traits are there absences. There are, for example, no black Fields Medal winners. While this is civilizationally consequential, it will not likely ever be important to you personally. Most people live and die without ever meeting (or wishing to meet) a Fields Medal winner. (6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences. (7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.   (8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet. (9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming. (10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense: (10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally. (10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods. (10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot). (10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks. (10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible. (10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians. (10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white. (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway. (10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving. (11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.” (12) There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth. (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice. (14) Be aware, however, that there is an issue of supply and demand here. Demand comes from organizations and businesses keen to display racial propriety by employing IWSBs, especially in positions at the interface with the general public—corporate sales reps, TV news presenters, press officers for government agencies, etc.—with corresponding depletion in less visible positions. There is also strong private demand from middle- and upper-class whites for personal bonds with IWSBs, for reasons given in the previous paragraph and also (next paragraph) as status markers. (15) Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13). * * * * * * * * * * * * * You don’t have to follow my version of the talk point for point; but if you are white or Asian and have kids, you owe it to them to give them some version of the talk. It will save them a lot of time and trouble spent figuring things out for themselves. It may save their lives.

    Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#ixzz1rfleMaea

  • DIFFERENCES ARE A MASS PHENOMENON “‘We do not see our differences during casual

    DIFFERENCES ARE A MASS PHENOMENON

    “‘We do not see our differences during casual conversations between individuals. It is when we form mobs, polities, armies, and economies, and compete as groups; when we unite under the banner of our myths, when we express our metaphysics, our first-beliefs in man, that those subtle tendencies, en masse find free expression, without the courtesy of daily connivance between isolated individuals. It is then, in that state, our sentiments fully exposed, we can compare the differences in our cultures, our nations and our values.”

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-08 11:56:00 UTC

  • CONTROVERSIAL POST ON RACE, POLITICS, NORMS, AND MULTICULTURALISM (A reply to th

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/04/07/defending-john-derbyshire-dear-brits-get-ready-to-eat-crow-on-race/A CONTROVERSIAL POST ON RACE, POLITICS, NORMS, AND MULTICULTURALISM

    (A reply to the Guardian)

    Source date (UTC): 2012-04-08 11:43:00 UTC