INTERESTING QUESTION: How do family structures vary?

The family structure determines:

the amount of inbreeding
the inheritance system
the private property rights that originate with the inheritance system
the degree of trust extended to non-family members, with inbreeding producing lower overall trust, and outbreeding higher trust.
the degree degree of authority necessary to maintain order (prevent violence in retaliation for unethical and immoral actions.)
the level of corruption demonstrated by members of the government, since they are merely members of society in a position to abuse authority.
the mobility of labor, since the larger the family structure the harder it is to move it to capital.
the economic velocity of the polity (wealth).

Conversely increase in family size determines:

the degree of alienation and loneliness, since family members treat you almost always better than others will.
the stress of raising children, since sharing child rearing across generations is so much easier.
The redistribution family members provide each other with.
the insurance from the vagaries of the economy and life
the demand for the state to provide all of the above in the absence of the family that the state has destroyed in pursuit of economic velocity.


STATE FINANCED SINGLE PARENT FAMILY – Medium term and short term pairings with or without a marriage ceremony that produces offspring, whereupon the parents cease cohabitation, and state redistribution finances directly or indirectly the support of the mother’s household.


ABSOLUTE NUCLEAR FAMILY – The “absolute nuclear” family is liberal and non-egalitarian (that is, indifferent to equality). Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is freely distributed by will.
NUCLEAR FAMILY, EGALITARIAN NUCLEAR – The “egalitarian nuclear” family is liberal and egalitarian. Children are completely free upon adulthood, founding independent families. Inheritance is equally distributed, implying at least a vestigial necessary link between parents and children throughout their lives.


EXTENDED FAMILY, STEM FAMILY, AUTHORITARIAN FAMILY – The “stem” family is authoritarian and inegalitarian. Several generations may live under one roof, notably the first-born, who will inherit the entirety of property and family headship (and thus perpetuate the family line). Other children typically leave the home to get married or become priests/soldiers.

A family that extends beyond the immediate family, consisting of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all living nearby or in the same household. The stem family is sometimes associated with inegalitarian inheritance practices, as in Japan and Korea, but the term has also been used in some contexts to describe a family type where parents live with a married child and his or her spouse and children, but the transfer of land and moveable property is more or less egalitarian. In these cases, the child who cares for the parents usually receives the house in addition to his or her own share of land and moveable property.


TRADITIONAL FAMILY, COMMUNITARIAN FAMILY – The “communitarian” family is authoritarian and equal. Several generations live under the same roof until the eldest die and the inheritance is divided equally.
HETAERISTIC MONOGAMY – Monogamy with frequent extra marriage sexual relations.
PAIRING FAMILY, SERIAL MARRIAGE – Medium term pairing of individuals either in patrilineal or matrilineal property systems.
CONSANGUINE FAMILY – three generations of interrelated individuals live together (pre-polynesian) without any prohibition on relations. Property is irrelevant in this system.


(Normals talk about meaningless nonsense all the time. we can learn to talk about meaningless nonsense too. it’s kind of hard at first to imagine meaningless nonsense, or even why you’d care about it. but it’s a product that the market wants, and if you want to obtain attention in the market, you have to use the currency of choice, and the currency of attention is meaningless nonsense: signals that do not require much of the recipient. once you try to talk about nonsense enough, it’s really just returning served pingpong ball with a little spin, not adding much to it at all. You sort of pick five topics that normals know something about, and keep informed about those in some niche, so you can always add niche info to a conversation. Most aspies specialize. But specializing in nonsense is unprofitable. So it is good to spread your specialization to something popular like fashion, music, politics, news, and spend the rest of your time on your specialization. This will let you talk to normals about meaningless stuff and enjoy it, as long as you simply understand that the entire purpose is NOT to share meaning, but pleasant images, and positive associations. we really like to talk about things that require thinking. normals have to work at thinking. we just think at the same volume that they feel. so they want to free associate with feelings, not with facts. when we free associate with facts, we look for contradictions. when they free associate with experiences they look for confirmations. when we look for dominance in our facts, they look for submissions in their experiences, so that they signal ‘I’m safe’ to one another. We find safety in knowledge and understanding, they find safety in shared experiences. They find pleasure in experiential novelty, and we find pleasure in informational novelty. Conversely, they find discomfort in the unknown information, and we in the unknown experience. It is far easier for us to work at contributing to the experiential association of normals, than it is for normals to work at contributing to the informational association of autistics. don’t be hard on normals for being dim. but don’t be easy on yourself for being dim either. Imagine that each of us sees a slightly different section of the spectrum of radiation, and that normals see most of the visual spectrum, and some of them are a little color blind. We on the other hand see in the equivalent of infrared. It is a much simpler view of the universe with clearer lines of delineation between entities that are meaningful (heat) and hose that are not (cold). But that is our only difference. Our world must be constructed of perceptions and analogies to perception. But with instrumentation and practice we can observe each other’s worlds. It just has to be cost effective. It isn’t really cost effective for them to perceive our world. But it is usually very cost effective for us to learn to perceive their world. It was very hard for me, and I am very bright and I worked very hard, but it is possible.


Question: —“Curt, does Bitcoin meet this Criteria? Is Bitcoin superior to Gold in terms of means of exchange?”—


Interesting question. Lets look at the list.
1) Scarcity (no. as long as people want them we can create more of them at a constant rate – the problem is actually the opposite: requiring constant adjustment to the weights to require enough work to maintain consistent value. Otherwise we could produce them infinitely without cost.)
2) Commodity Utility. (no. it has no intrinsic use.)
3) Non-perishability (no. because like the stock market they require infrastructure for redemption.)
4) Volume and weight to value ratio (yes)
5) Nearly universal convertibility (not yet, and until we get to 10 second blocs, which kind of defeats the purpose, I suspect we wont get there.)
6) Functional unit of account, store of value, and medium of exchange. (not yet. Not enough volume).


A bitcoin consists of a fractional share of stock in the bitcoin network. What separates the shares of stock in bitcoin from shares of stock in other publicly and privately traded stocks, is (a) that one need not go through a clearing house (anyone with a wallet can clear an exchange), and (b) that one can sell a fractional portion of a share of his stock (a bitcoin).

Just as any other business can fail, so can the bitcoin network. It is fully open sourced, fully transparent organization, operated by pretty good incentives, but that does not mean it cannot fail, and that those shares cannot be worthless. (In fact, it’s just as likely as not.)

BItcoin provides low transaction costs. And I suspect that it will result in a lower cost means of transferring money, rather than as money itself.

Now, I know a lot about the subject of what is money and what isn’t. Technically speaking, bitcoins are fractional shares of stock usable under some conditions as a money substitute that we call token money, for the purposes of decreasing transaction costs.

It is an ingenious way of funding a business. It is however, not ‘money proper’. Or, in classical language ‘money in the narrow sense’.

(Of course, that won’t stop a zillion imbeciles from spewing nonsense at me but that’s the reality of it.)

It is very unlikely that anything will surpass gold as a currency of last resort. And in truth, the currency of the reigning world powers will except under shocks, always be a better store of value than gold because prices are harder to manipulate than the price of gold, since governments work hard to insure that they are the exclusive manipulators.


The unpleasant truth is that the USA is anti masculine; and black males are more masculine – with much more testosterone and much more impulsivity – so black males endure disproportionate suppression of their masculinity, and exhibit a disproportionate intolerance for submission to the state.

This is the real, unstated, incognizant origin of black criminalization: suppression of natural male behavior.

In no other country is it so prohibited. In no other country are black males so suppressed. In no other country are males so suppressed.

I will leave America because I understand that the war on black men is just the front line of the war on men, in the most feminist country on earth.

God forbid men should resist enslavement by the state, and suppression of their masculinity so that privileged white men and their silly women can feel a sense of superiority through altruistic punishment.

Free all masculinity and take black men off the front lines of the war against masculinity.

The first problem is to know the correct enemy, and your enemy’s motivations.

Fight the right battle.


—“That we have immoral politics for thousands of years does not make crass politics any less evil.”– David Macdonough.

(Note, I just wanted to capture this response here, as a good illustration of the familial origins of morality. In this reply, I’m trying to suggest why government must be not just rational but scientific. Because, as most of you know, I have become very hostile to the pretense of reason, given the pseudoscientific attack on the west during the 20th century.)


A population ISLE is on a large island with Crete’s climate, plenty of sea resources, fertile volcanic soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can afford to buy their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. This controls their population. They are all closely related so they out-breed. They conduct internal and sea trade.

A population FOR lives in a land of forests and rivers, with a temperate climate of hot but bearable summers and cold but bearable winters, fertile soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can own their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. Most neighboring populations practice very similar manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and they conduct land and river trade. They are all closely related so they out breed at least locally.

A population PEN lives on a peninsula that provides adequate but not good terrain and soil. They are surrounded on all sides by very different peoples, all of whom seek control of trade routes and taxes to fund the costs of keeping competitors at bay. They practice traditional families. Only the upper classes control their breeding. They practice non-egalitarian inheritance to keep property in the family. They breed largely with close friends and relatives.

A Population STP lives on an steppe of horsemen with limited resources, no transportable rivers or sea lanes, harsh winters and warm short summers. All local resources are scarce so they move their herds constantly across vast areas and constantly come into competition with other similar groups. The do not control their breeding and they in-breed to keep limited portable property in the family.

A Population DES lives on a desert of horsemen with no resources, hot days and cold nights, useless soil, and they sustain themselves by migratory herding. There are no local resources so they move their herds constantly across very fragile terrain and compete ruthlessly to obtain or hold what they have. They do not control their breeding and they in-breed almost exclusively to keep limited portable property in the family.

While the assessment of criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct remains constant in all cultures, the TOLERANCE or INTOLERANCE for criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct varies between these groups. The degree of demonstrated morality one practices reflects the degree of outbreeding one practices.

Cooperation is a reproductive strategy. The only rational reason for abandoning violence is that it is more rewarding to cooperate than conflict. The only reason to engage in ethical behavior is because it is more rewarding than engaging in deception with out-group members (the market) and in-group members – because they will ostracize you. The only reason to engage in moral behavior is because other members of your group will ostracize you for not. But one doesn’t care about out-group members, upon who we can impose costs at will whenever possible.

Westerners make the mistake of confusing the universal ethics of the market, with the strategic reproductive ethics of the polity.

No one other than westerners makes this mistake. When other civilizations complain about capitalism, it is the attack on their family structures that it represents, in no small part, they are reacting to – justifiably.

In then end analysis, under unmitigated fully ethical, but morally neutral capitalism, over time, the most parasitic peoples that breed the fastest will conquer those that attempt to concentrate and accumulate capital.

(See **Altruistic Punishment**. ie: suicidal tendencies.)

I don’t make ‘should’ arguments. I make ‘is’ arguments. What we do with the world as it is, is a competitive advantage. That is why scientific arguments are a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage for the tribes and families that use them. Everything less scientific is merely a disadvantage.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine



Roman has suggested that I try to clarify:

(a) Ethical statements are truths, not Preferences.

(b) Some groups prefer MORE moral and ethical societies, and some LESS moral and ethical societies, depending upon the homogeneity of the group.

(c) Criminal, Ethical, Moral and Conspiratorial prohibitions constitute a spectrum from the most personally experiential to the most distant and indirect. An homogenous society can prohibit many forms of unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial conduct. However, heterogeneous societies do not benefit from enforcing ethical moral and conspiratorial prohibitions, since this prohibits inter-group parasitism.

(d) Humans compete by cooperating. Even though we are cooperating we are still competing. We are just competing productively rather than destructively. He who breeds wins.



—“To be correct, ethical memes need to be universal. It cannot be right or wrong only for some but not for all. But all mere values are personal, but a value is only like a belief in that respect.”— David M.

Excellent. I’d suggest improving this a bit.

“All true ethical propositions must apply universally. All preferential rules need not apply universally. All preferences must exist as individual opinions. All ethical (and moral) rules must exist independent of individual opinions. “

The term “meme” refers to the rate of involuntary distribution. An ethical rule may be stated mimetically or not. While it is certainly more efficacious that an ethical rule be stated mimetically, the truth of the proposition holds whether it is stated mimetically or not.

For example, most false moral statements constructed by the Frankfurt school and the postmodernists as well as many of the pseudoscientific arguments of twentieth century social science, appear to be ethical, but are not.

Worse, justifications for unethical and immoral actions spread fastest because they allow for rapid returns.

So (a) ethical rules, if true, are universal. (b) The memetic construction of an idea has no correspondence with its truth. In fact since ethical rules require us to forgo consumption, in general, they impose a cost upon us, and therefore they are constantly met with friction. This is why the common law must always evolve: we find a new way of ‘cheating’ and then must describe that form of cheating as illegal. Rules follow inventions.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.



—” what constitutes ethics and what makes certain ethical values it universal?”—

Cooperation (forgoing opportunity to use violence) is non logical under conditions of parasitism, imposed costs, or free riding. Voluntary exchange is only rational if mutually productive, and free of negative externality.

Now, if one exists in a tribal family structure (say levantine or arabic) or in an outbred family structure (northern Europe), whether one is ‘free riding’ on whom may constitute different ethical preferences. One group may prefer a less moral and ethical society, and another may prefer a more moral and ethical society. In other words, in a low-trust in-bred polity (Jews, gypsies, arabs) one is expected to act on behalf of the family at all costs. (See Banfield’s The Moral Basis of a Backward Society). However, this inbreeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Emmanuel Todd) Just as jewish and Gypsy near breeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Macdonald) These groups practice dual ethical systems: high trust-in-group and low-trust out-group. Only northern europeans, who practice the absolute nuclear family, evolved high trust ethics – a total prohibition on parasitism, imposed costs, and free riding. Because only northern Europeans succeeded in breaking the family and tribal fealties through manorialism, outbreeding and property rights. It was an economic advantage for westerners to develop universalism. But that universalism independent of separatism, is uncompetitive.

Ethical rules are universal. We choose a m ore ethical society or a less ethical society given the diversity or heterogeneity of the population.

(Period. End of Argument. Much to the displeasure of many.)

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine


What is the return on an individual’s respect for property rights?

For him?
For the polity?
For man?

We cannot construct the voluntary organization without widespread respect.

So then how do we calculate the cost if that adherence?

Labor has no known value except in exchange. At which point we learn its value.

But respect for property rights, and active construction and perpetuation of them, always produces value.

Earlier thinkers assumed that membership and participation in the market was sufficient compensation for respecting property rights.

But this exchange was possible only because of the possibility of entry.

In a world of mandatory inclusion, this choice no longer exists.

In a world of marginally different productivity, where the underclasses no longer can provide useful skills, they are mandatorially included, but necessarily excluded.

In fact, their only value is in providing instructions in the form of demand, for the organization of production to satisfy their wants and to reward producers.

But they have nothing to exchange except constructing and maintaining the voluntary organization of production.

This presents us with a logical contradiction. They are forcibly included but necessarily excluded.

How do we solve this contradiction?

Par them for services rendered, and do not pay them if they fail to render services.

Voluntary exchange.


Peace is an idiot’s obsession.

The only rational pursuit is the positive expression in property rights of the negative prohibition on free riding. Violence toward that end is always rational and moral. Peace is an undesirable pursuit, since it simply justifies whatever level of immorality is currently extant.

People who pursue peace for its own sake are, if necessity, immoralists.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.