Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • YES, WOMEN ARE UNDERREPRESENTED IN HISTORY – BECAUSE WE REMEMBER EXTREMES, NOT R

    YES, WOMEN ARE UNDERREPRESENTED IN HISTORY – BECAUSE WE REMEMBER EXTREMES, NOT REGULARITIES

    (read for some good useful arguments)

    Women were ineffective at leaving ‘extraordinary’ marks on history for a number of obvious reasons:

    1 – Strength, athleticism, bravery, loyalty, and cunning provided marginal differences in groups that made possible disruptions in society. Consensus does not produce change, but regularity.

    2 – All progress is achieved through either conquest, competition, or innovation (change in state); and innovation appears to be an almost exclusively masculine achievement – so much so that despite a century of seeking even a single woman we find none equal in theoretical innovation to men, and those women we do find produce empirical insights instead(ie:Ostrom). All innovation is produced at the limits of human abilities. Women dominate the middle and men dominate the extremes.

    3 – Rearing five or six children in the pre-modern era is a full time 365 day a year occupation that has occupied them. Unfortunately, women desire attention, and feminists desire political power, so while the soldier and the craftsman grasp that they are as important to the whole as a group as the great man is as an individual; this does not suit the political interests of feminists to assist in overthrowing the aristocratic sovereign meritocratic social order, and restoring the primitivism of the rest of the world. We spent thousands of years producing the compromise of the nuclear family, and one-vote for one-family. This is the optimum compromise position under which neither gets what they most prefer, but most all get the best they can get. The sacrifice we pay for marriage and family is a sacrifice just as taxes, obeying norms and laws, and fighting war are sacrifices we pay for getting the best we can not the best we desire.

    4 – The impolitic truth: women are demonstrably far less loyal to the group (willing to bear costs) than men even if they are far more concerned with harmony (social safety for themselves and their offspring). Throughout history women have been considered shallow, petty, duplicitous, traitorous, and impulsive. It was just as hard to domesticate women as it has been to domesticate men. And that domestication was achieved in large part through controlling reproduction (just as we do with animals) using the institution of monogamous marriage first, and the prohibition on cousin marriage later, and aggressively hanging malcontents last. Men evolved to capture and herd women. It was through cooperation and the development of property and family that we came to a compromise between the male ability and desire to herd women, and the female ability and desire to choose mates. Women have a smaller number of closer friends, men a larger number of looser friends. Women never stop trying to gain status among other women. Men seek only to maintain a ‘natural’ status so that they maintain value to the tribe. We have little value for ‘care, affection, and sex’. We have great value for changing the state of the physical world to that which we prefer. Women will cheat on the tribe just as men will cheat on a woman. THis behavior is not at all conscious.

    WOMEN IN THE FUTURE

    The current era is coming to a close, and will very likely be remembered in history as the second attempt at hyperconsumption. And that women in leadership positions is evidence of the failure of the men in that civilization, just as it was in the ancient world, just as it is in the modern, and just as it is in board rooms in the largest companies: the fact that women are in charge is merely evidence of the failure of men to create a consensus among men who create a competitive difference.

    Just as we cannot all be leaders, women do not bear quality children in large numbers, a civilization will die – from having no ‘host’ for its ideas.

    Men work at the extremes, and we dominate the extremes.

    Women work at regularities and dominate the regularities.

    We must teach extremes and incentivize extremes through narratives. We must teach regularities and incentivize regularities by demonstrations. Father extremes, mother regularities.

    The fact that our genes inspire us to do these things is not surprising.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 03:57:00 UTC

  • WAS ALEXANDER GREAT? MORE THAN HISTORIANS GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR ALEXANDER In the 3

    WAS ALEXANDER GREAT? MORE THAN HISTORIANS GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR

    ALEXANDER

    In the 3500 year old battle between the aristocracy(how we live) and the dictatorship(how most of the world lives) he was the first great general to defeat the first great threat to our civilization (our aristocratic civilization): the Persian Empire, and as a consequence the totalitarianism of the river civilizations, making the world safe for the territorial farming civilizations.

    What you might add to your understanding of history, is that those people who invented Aristocracy invented as a consequence, sovereignty. And the only possible means of decision making under sovereignty: debate, reason, logic, empiricism, and the objective Truth that results from their use; and the only possible institutions of decision making under sovereignty: jury, senate, democracy; And the only possible method of conflict resolution under sovereignty: Natural, judge-discovered, common law. And the methods of organization under sovereignty: a market for production of goods and services; a market for reproduction (marriage); a market for the production of commons (multi-house democratic government); a market for the production of knowledge (science); a market for leadership (election).

    Despite the west being poorer, less populous, and on the edge of the bronze age, the west advanced faster than the rest of the world in both the ancient athenian(navy)-spartan(army)-roman(industry), and modern anglo(navy)-german(army)-american(industry) eras, because there is no faster way of adapting and innovating than heroism, sovereignty, truth, and markets-in-everything.

    So Heroism creates the need for Sovereignty, which in turn creates the need for everything the west has achieved that we value.

    And that is why Alexander Matters. He is the HAND of Aristotle. And the two of them conquered the east in defense of the west. Aristotle conquered mysticism and falsehoods, and Alexander despotism.

    The west has a very important and unique idea: sovereignty.

    ASIDE: THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES

    – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity.

    – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy.

    – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources

    – Consumption(‘so called positive freedom’): women, children, and the underclasses

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 01:50:00 UTC

  • The Jewish movements all failed. Anglo/Germanic is the only possible

    The Jewish movements all failed. Anglo/Germanic is the only possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 18:34:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773952714732691456

    Reply addressees: @Anti_Gnostic @Mangan150 @ChateauEmissary @lewrockwell @ThomasEWoods

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773949007060201476

  • I think what we are seeing is the end to Aryanism masquerading as Christian univ

    I think what we are seeing is the end to Aryanism masquerading as Christian universalism masquerading as democratic consumer capitalism, advanced under east coast puritanism, jeffersonian conservatism, jewish neoconservatism, jewish libertarianis, jewish socialism. And that we are returning to ‘what works for my people’ world wide. The jews are doing fine by way of white armies. 🙂 Just as whites have done fine by way of underclass armies.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-08 07:22:00 UTC

  • Don’t have the time to put a list together. Although it’s a good topic. Roman Em

    Don’t have the time to put a list together. Although it’s a good topic. Roman Empire Travel=Euro Empire Travel. Econ. Media.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 12:03:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773129436594073600

    Reply addressees: @cg_mischling

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773125549778620420


    IN REPLY TO:

    @cg_mischling

    @curtdoolittle so modernization (not modernity) realized global dissemination of lies? Where can I learn more (sincere)?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773125549778620420

  • lying exists only because the martial class had to avoid it but as political, me

    lying exists only because the martial class had to avoid it but as political, media, bourgeoise and labor classes arrived …


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 11:41:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773123959940407296

    Reply addressees: @cg_mischling

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773122803792961539


    IN REPLY TO:

    @cg_mischling

    @curtdoolittle good point. It seems through that transmutation of lying is the result of some form of transcendental or at least metaphysics

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/773122803792961539

  • THE WEST’S EVOLUTION OF ARYRANISM: DOMESTICATION Aryanism -> Aristocracy -> Chri

    THE WEST’S EVOLUTION OF ARYRANISM: DOMESTICATION

    Aryanism -> Aristocracy -> Christanity -> Puritanism -> Imperialsm -> American Hegemonialism -> …..????

    Do we evolve Aryanism once again, and do we return to our ancient ‘industry’ of domesticating and transcending man? Or do we fall ito another dark age? Or do we disappear from the earth?

    No other civilization has done this. It is possible no other can.

    Is there any higher purpose that a man can be called to fight for?

    I can’t think of any.

    We discovered truth. We imposed it on an unwilling world.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 06:16:00 UTC

  • This is an exceptionally good series because you bring into focus the shared cha

    This is an exceptionally good series because you bring into focus the shared challenge throughout each generation: their ongoing attempt to solve the problem of modernity: morality at our new industrial scale, (just as the great transformation in the 5th century bc was created by the scale of our cities and the markets they created between them.

    Most of these men are demonized by one politically evangelical side or the other despite their various attempts to solve the same problem. It’s especially helpful that you touch on the … exaggerated focus of each of these thinkers, as ‘the one way’ to solve the problem. “If we just got everyone to believe this…” is a pretty obvious attempt to replace christianity with a new value system equally homogenous.

    What isn’t obvious is that each proposes (like monotheistic religion before them) a MONOPOLY solution to the problem rather than tailoring the social order to the abilities of each class – given that the challenge of modernity is the increasing value provided by our ability to learn, rather than our ability to labor or escape labor.

    I think this is the question that we beg but are collectively afraid to answer because it will eliminate the necessary democratic illusion of equality, that replaced the necessary monopoly illusion of monotheism.

    The one persona I feel you are missing is perhaps Thorstein Veblen. Your addition of Ruskin’s aesthetics is … delightful – I wouldn’t have thought to add him. You’ve elegantly illustrated that these are all collectively moral men attempting to preserve monotheistic cultural homogeneity in new institutional form.

    But now that you illustrated the similarities in ambition, it might be just as informative and helpful to illustrate the dissimilarities advocated by the outliers: Marx/Keynes/Rawls(lower/left classes) on one end, Locke/Smith/Hayek(middle/libertarian class) in the center, and Nietzche/Darwin/Spencer on the other(upper/right classes).

    It might be interesting to compare the moral approach you’ve taken, with the three competing class propositions that would illustrate the conflict between classes more clearly.

    My position is that we are always just choosing between dysgenic, compromise, and eugenic reproduction. And that the rest of our pontification regardless of position is all justification of those priors.

    Anyway. I’m just offering thoughts as a way of appreciating your work.

    Thank you.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 06:14:00 UTC

  • What does this tell us? That Europeans failed to domesticate most of the world a

    What does this tell us? That Europeans failed to domesticate most of the world as they had themselves? 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 13:36:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772065656531484672

    Reply addressees: @voxdotcom @karlbykarlsmith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/556832142705950720


    IN REPLY TO:

    @voxdotcom

    500 years of European colonialism, in one animated map http://t.co/wVBElihtJ8 http://t.co/yVsxNMg1m3

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/556832142705950720

  • So some of us do not see Star Trek, but coastal India. Castes not equality

    So some of us do not see Star Trek, but coastal India. Castes not equality.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 10:53:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/772024742836637696

    Reply addressees: @HeerJeet @EdBurkenstock @StrolllTrollll @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771860475558567937


    IN REPLY TO:

    @HeerJeet

    @StrolllTrollll @JonHaidt A lot of what we rightly see as horrifyingly racist was mainstream in western culture from say 1500 to 1960s

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771860475558567937