Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • ARISTOCRATIC ORIGINS OF LIBERTY AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY Heroism: Status Through Cr

    ARISTOCRATIC ORIGINS OF LIBERTY AND THE CIVIL SOCIETY

    Heroism: Status Through Creating Change (metaphysics)

    Nation (an extended family)

    Nuclear Family (the organizational unit of society)

    Property (the means of cooperation on means)

    Common Law (the means of dispute resolution)

    Independent Judiciary (the defenders of civilization)

    Monarchy (veto power) (house 1)

    Aristocracy (dispute resolution between nations) (house 2)

    Nobility (commerce with in the nation) (house 3)

    Priesthood (redistribution within the nation) (house 4)

    Militia (ownership)

    Hospitaliers (care taking)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 05:47:00 UTC

  • RUSSIA: THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO FAILED (use this meme) Why is it, that throughout t

    RUSSIA: THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO FAILED

    (use this meme)

    Why is it, that throughout their history, at every opportunity, Russians consistently make the wrong decision? What is it that Russians incorrectly intuit about the world? Why do they have the lowest trust most corrupt nation of all the white peoples? Why is it that Russians are the one white people who have failed.

    If any people was ever incapable of self government, it’s Russians. If any people was less capable of governing others. It’s the Russians. What is it about the Russian character that causes them to consistently fail? What metaphysical assumption about the nature of man and his relationship to the world is so flawed that unless tightly bound to europe they contribute nothing to legacy of white people? Why is it that western peoples have dragged the entire world out of ignorance mysticism sickness and poverty, while russians try consistently to reverse the trend by dragging those white people near them into their failed civilization?

    Why is it that Russians have nothing to offer the world other than corruption, violence, fear and poverty?

    Why are Russians the only white people who have failed?

    Curt Doolittle

    Kiev

    ===

    FROM ANDRAS TOTH (edited)

    Russian peculiarity, to a certain extent is a consequence of geography – as with any other nation and state in premodern and to a certain extent, lesser degree in modern times.

    1) Few big rivers channeling into closed sees – obstructs trade and industrial development, favours self-sustaining closed economies.

    2) Far away from big cultural centres, which lessened the impact of other cultures, and learning by transactions, copying, emulating and transfer of ideas, new practices.

    3) Russia only entered into European history in the XVIIIth century, when expanded borders westward (absorbing Ukraine and Eastern Poland and the Baltics) and with the advent of railways, which made possible the larger scale involvement in trade and world markets.

    4) Unfortunately for Russia, when technically was able to join to the world economy, key countries moved to economic nationalism, beginning with Germany which imposed custom tariff on agriculture products to save East Prussian Junkers from Russian wheat and agricultural products.

    5) Nothing else left to Russia than turn to imperialism and try to expand to get to the seashore through the Balkans to circumvent German trade barrier.

    6) Hence the I.WW, where Russian expansion was blocked by Austria Hungary backed by Germany.

    7). Bolshevik revolution due to the extreme hardship and delegitimization of Czarist regime as a direct consequence of I. WW.

    8) Communist destruction.

    ===

    To which I’ll add:

    (1) the desert and steppe people are a problem and always have been, and have been exceedingly so for the Rus who sit between us, and those people. The chinese character is likewise informed by that same concern, although the chinese do have a nearly impassable desert between them and the ‘undesirable’ people. So just as we in the west have tried to keep the ‘near east’ at bay since the bronze age, the people in both Russia and China have tried to keep the ‘steppe’ people at bay – and failed most of the time. The mongols the most obvious case.

    (2) When Russians sought to modernize, the had the choice of selecting european or byzantine christianity. They chose poorly. Their main trading partner was still byzantium / Islam. The origin of much of the Rus culture is slave trade with Byzantium / Islam.

    (3) As a large poor backward country, they kept their expropriation serfdom until a couple of hundred years ago, the better of the Czars couldn’t modernize fast enough, the soviets (the underclasses) restored that totalitarianism. It’s a very nihilistic low trust culture that seeks easy solutions to problems and has no problem with the win-lose ethic. The win-win ethic is something they actually assume is some kind of deception.

    (4) Without the catholic church’s ban on intermarriage, the west would not have broken familial and tribal bonds, and we would not have outbred, and created the high trust society. Although one reason we broke those bonds easily was that north sea peoples had already been practicing outbreeding and manorialism, which is the origin of the protestant ethic. Not much protestant about it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-01 04:15:00 UTC

  • CIVILIZATION HAS LIBERATED MANKIND —“”When we review the names of Muslim philo

    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3264.htmWESTERN CIVILIZATION HAS LIBERATED MANKIND

    —“”When we review the names of Muslim philosophers and scholars whose contribution to the West is pointed out by Western writers, such as Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haitham, Ibn Sina, Al-Farbi, Al-Razi, Al-Khwarizmi, and their likes, we find that all of them were disciples of the Greek culture and they were individuals who were outside the [Islamic] mainstream. They were and continue to be unrecognized in our culture. We even burned their books, harassed them, [and] warned against them, and we continue to look at them with suspicion and aversion. How can we then take pride in people from whom we kept our distance and whose thought we rejected?…”—

    —“Indeed, it is not, nor is it indebted to any other previous civilization. Western civilization has its foundation in Greece in the sixth and fifth centuries BC; then it stopped in the Middle Ages, but resumed its progress in modern times, when its benefits have come to include all nations. It is really extraordinary in every meaning of the word – excellence, uniqueness, and novelty… It has components and qualities which distinguish it from all previous and subsequent civilizations. It is the product of philosophical thinking invented by the Greeks. The Europeans have based themselves on this kind of thinking, especially on its critical aspect, which developed the capability of producing objective knowledge that is always open to review, correction and progress…”—

    –“The only civilization which possesses the ingredients of perpetual progress is Western civilization, with its Greek foundation and its amazing contemporary formation. … Western civilization believes that it is impossible to possess absolute truth and that human perfection is impossible, so man must strive to achieve it while recognizing that it is impossible to reach. Thus it is the only civilization which is constantly growing and constantly reviewing and correcting itself and achieving continuous discoveries. …”–

    Thanks Adam Voight. This made my day. He compliments the right things. Ignores the bad things, and correctly identifies the difference between following teachings, and acting politically in the name of teachings.

    Sometimes I think it’s all hopeless but these little bits of intellectual sunshine are something to enjoy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 14:24:00 UTC

  • MORE EQUAL WORLD : THANK THE ANGLOS FOR CAPITALISM AND FOR DRAGGING HUMANITY OUT

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d79ffff8-cfb7-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz30MSBHmRhA MORE EQUAL WORLD : THANK THE ANGLOS FOR CAPITALISM AND FOR DRAGGING HUMANITY OUT OF IGNORANCE AND POVERTY.

    –“When looking at the actual consumption per head, the report found the new methodology as well as faster growth in poor countries have “greatly reduced” the gap between rich and poor, “suggesting that the world has become more equal”. The world’s rich countries still account for 50 per cent of global GDP while containing only 17 per cent of the world’s population.”–

    Of course, no man is felt a hero to his debtors.

    The only measure of equality is consumption – the rest is investment and taxes. If we look at consumption per capita, rich western countries are far more equal than their ‘egalitarian’ counterparts. Because all that extra ‘wealth’ is merely the means of influencing the voluntary organization of production. It is ‘pressure’ not consumption. It’s not ‘real’ money that can be consumed.

    But getting human beings to understand that it is not consumable without likewise losing the ability to voluntarily organize production, is just beyond their comprehension.

    Rich countries are rich because they voluntarily organize very complex, highly rewarding production with little corruption at low risk.

    One may not think of the US military as an organizer of production. But both the UK Navy and the US postwar military are the defacto-organizers of world production.

    The question remains, that if the west ceases organizing voluntary production by meritocratic means, then what form of involuntary production by unmeritocratic means will prevail.

    History is not terribly comforting in this regard.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 05:47:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : LOLLIPOPS Now, you know, it must be an american thing, b

    CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : LOLLIPOPS

    Now, you know, it must be an american thing, because we’re kind of silly. But while I wouldn’t do it at a business meeting unless I knew everyone, an adult can walk around with a little lollipop occasionally. (I do. But then I’m sillier than most.)

    Apparently lollipops are called ‘Chupa Chups’ here.

    –“”Chupa Chups (/ˈtʃʌpətʃʌps/; Spanish pronunciation: [ˈtʃupaˈtʃups]) is a popular confectionery brand sold in over 150 countries around the world. It was originally used on a lollipop. The brand was founded by the Catalan Enric Bernat in 1958, and is currently owned by the Italian multinational corporation Perfetti Van Melle. The name of the brand comes from the Spanish verb chupar, meaning “to suck”. “”–

    Now, I am perfectly happy to walk around with a lollipop but people here don’t walk around with coffee or food in public the way americans do either. (cigarettes are everywhere, but not consumables).

    And apparently it’s embarrassing to be with an adult who’s sucking on a lolly.

    Too bad. I’ll just say I’m an american and I don’t know better. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 07:47:00 UTC

  • DUCHESNE ON SPENGLER –“…the architecture of the Gothic cathedral expresses th

    DUCHESNE ON SPENGLER

    –“…the architecture of the Gothic cathedral expresses the Faustian will to

    conquer the heavens; Western symphonic music conveys the Faustian

    urge to conjure up a dynamic, transcendent, infinite space of sound;

    Western perspective painting mirrors the Faustian will to infinite distance;

    and the Western novel responds to the Faustian imperative to

    explore the inner depths of the human personality while extending outward with a comprehensive view… “–

    –“it was not a calmed, disinterested, rationalistic ethos

    that was at the heart of Western particularity; it was a highly energetic,

    goal-oriented desire to achieve mastery and exploitation of the natural

    world. The West was governed by an intense irrational will to transcend

    the material limits of existence.”–

    –“Farrenkopf thus notes (45) that in contrast to Weber, for whom the West “exhibited an unrivalled aptitude for rationalization,” Spengler saw in the West a distinctive primeval-irrational will to power. I also agree with Farrenkopf that “the existence of profoundly different cultural styles demonstrates, according to Spengler, the diversity, not the unity, of human psychological orientation in civilizational development” (45).”–

    –“Farrenkopf, however, makes the persuasive argument that there are

    “two Spenglers”: an earlier one who lamented the spreading of bourgeois

    philistinism and the exhaustion of Europe’s majestic aristocratic

    tradition, and a later one who saw in science and technology a continuation

    (for some time) of the vitality and transformative energy of

    the West (51).”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 04:17:00 UTC

  • DUCHESNE ON HEGEL’S REASON FOR WESTERN UNIQUENESS –“What drew Hegel’s attention

    DUCHESNE ON HEGEL’S REASON FOR WESTERN UNIQUENESS

    –“What drew Hegel’s attention was the seemingly restless desire of Western reason to become fully conscious of itself as **free activity**.”–

    Ok. so you know, this is what I mean. Translate that into operational language and tell me what the hell it means. I mean, I know what it *should* mean.

    –“According to Hegel, individuals become what they are potentially – rationally self-conscious agents – when they recognized themselves as free in their institutions and laws. …. the effort of human reason to become what it is intrinsically: the free author of its own concepts, values, and practices. “–

    –“The Phenomenology thus exhibits the ways in which diverse but interrelated outlooks held sway and conviction for some time only to be seen as limited in their inability to provide answers consistent with the demands of beings that are becoming more aware of themselves as the free creators of their own beliefs, laws, and institutions”–

    You are free when you think freely. But what is the cause? Why isn’t the cause property? The taste for property and status, and the distaste for losing one’s property and status to an authority.

    –“The Phenomenology, however, should not be viewed as a strictly

    chronological history of the development of consciousness”–

    Well, you know, I view intellectual history outside of the sciences as reactive and justificationary. Those justifications are later used as causes, but I don’t see much evidence that our thinkers all that innovative. It seems like we justify as a means of mitigating conflicts. Justifications solve problems for current and later generations. But the problem exists prior to its solution.

    So what was the problem or cause? I think that it’s not complicated, that it’s just the warrior tactics and private property. Gimbutas doesn’t reduce it to property, but that’s just because she wasn’t interested in economic institutions.

    And I really don’t know a lot of thinkers that have connected instinctual evolutionary morality and property other than myself. But if we start out with that instinctual prohibition against free riding and therefore in favor of some form of property, and we add voluntary associations of men who conduct cattle raiding, who because of risk, retain their stolen assets, and from that we get property and warriors who covet status and property, then we get heroism and individualism from that point forward. I think all intellectual activity is simply an effort to maintain that relationship of sovereignty in the context of current circumstances. It’s certainly the most simplistic explanation. It satisfies occam’s razor.

    If we add to the preference for private property, the fact that europe is riddled with waterways that make trade possible and relatively less expensive. If we add to that observation that our economic development was also aided by four seas: the Aegean, the Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Atlantic that both facilitate trade and form barriers to conflict – then we do not have to really account for intellectual history for western character as other than justificationary.

    The greeks then are merely improving means of exchanging property. Exchanging property requires objective truth to avoid conflict between sovereigns. And Aristotle (etc) invents science as a consequence of objective truth. (Greeks aren’t actually individualistic but familial but it’s close enough to produce the same outcome: property.)

    –“What Hegel suggests to me, albeit in a very general way, is that there

    were already in Greece – before the polis – characters unwilling to

    submit to despotic rule.”–

    –“let me state for now that the polis was created by a pre-existing aristocratic culture whose values were physical prowess, courage, fi erce protection of one’s family, friends, and property, and above all, one’s personal honor and reputation.”–

    –“The polis grew out of a peculiar social landscape of tribal republics

    in which individual rivalry for prestige and victory had the highest

    value, and in which hatred of monarchical government was the norm.

    Before citizenship was expanded to include independent farmers and

    hoplite soldiers, the Greek mainland was dominated by a warrior aristocracy. This expansive and aggressive aristocracy was the original persona of Western civilization.”–

    –“What Hegel criticized was the liberal contractual argument that there

    was an “original state of nature” in which man “was in the possession

    of his natural rights and the unlimited exercise and enjoyment of his

    freedom” (1978: 54). He rejected the assumption that, if all the products

    of culture and history were somehow stripped away, one would

    fi nd humans living in a state of natural freedom, or in a condition in

    which each was the possessor of individual rights. The concept of

    right, for Hegel, was not “negative” in the sense that it was free from all

    “positive” content, from the weight of social norms and history. Man

    “in his immediate and natural way of existence” – that is, in the state of

    nature – was not the possessor of natural rights. The freedoms of men

    were “acquired and won…only through an infinite process of the discipline

    of knowledge and will power” (54). Humans had to acquire the

    capacity for self-control to achieve freedom, which was rather difficult

    in the state of nature (1971: 175). Hegel thus spoke of the state of nature

    in terms of the “primitive conditions” of human existence, as a time

    when human relations were “marked by brute passions and acts of

    violence.”

    *The state of nature, therefore, is rather the state of injustice, violence,

    untamed natural impulses, of inhuman deeds and emotions (54).”

    Hegel wrote elsewhere, in fact, that “the fight for recognition…can only

    occur in the natural state, where men exist only as single, separate individuals”

    (1971: 172). The struggle for recognition ceases to be a violent engagement when civil society proper is consolidated. In civil society individuals can achieve recognition peacefully, or in a less capricious manner, by obeying the law and doing what is socially acceptable, pursuing a profession or following a trade.

    The state tries to achieve prestige by fighting other states but the state no longer condones violent feuding between citizens.”–

    CURT: The struggle for status. The universal availability of status. Limited to organizing or participating in production. (and by consequence the lesser status, and envy of status, of those who cannot engage in production).

    –“self consciousness makes its appearance in the decision “of Man” to fight to the death for the sake of recognition. Kojeve explains that “Man” starts to become “truly” self-conscious only to the extent that he “actively”

    engages in a fight where he risks his life “for something that does not

    exist really” – that is, “solely ‘for glory’ or for the sake of his ‘vanity’

    alone (which by this risk, ceases to be ‘vain’ and becomes the specifi –

    cally human value of honor” (1999: 226).”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 13:32:00 UTC

  • “Why the great accomplishments of humanity in the sciences and arts have been ov

    —“Why the great accomplishments of humanity in the sciences and arts have been overwhelmingly European? My first task is to show that Europe was in fact the most creative culture of the world. My second, and main task, is to start explaining why this was the case, in comparative contrast to the

    more serene and deferential Eastern spirit.”—

    –“human accomplishment is determined by the degree to which cultures promote or discourage autonomy and purpose. Accomplishments have been “more common and more extensive in cultures where doing new things and acting autonomously [were] encouraged than in cultures [where they were] disapprove[d]” (395). Human beings have also been “most magnifi cently productive and reached their highest cultural peaks in the times and places where humans have thought most deeply about their place in the universe

    and been most convinced they have one.” —

    –“Both Buddhism and Daoism taught that purposeful action on this earth was a delusion; they encouraged the virtues of serene acceptance, gentleness, and passivity as a way of comprehending the universe and one’s role in it. The progress achieved in China and Japan was made consensually and hierarchically by individuals motivated to become a valued part of a tradition by imitating their past masters.

    Islam gave its believers a sense of purpose and energy that helped foster the achievements of its golden age. But Islam saw God as a deity who is not bound by immutable laws, and which emphasized obedience to God’s rules and submission to his will against any presumption that humans could comprehend his works or glorify God with their understanding of nature.

    Islamic, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian cultures

    were all highly familistic, hierarchical, and consensual cultures

    (400–01). Europe was different in the way it was able to integrate

    purpose with autonomy. This integration produced “the defining cultural

    characteristic of European civilization, individualism” (401).

    The Greeks laid the foundations of human rational autonomy but their

    culture was still not individualistic, insomuch as it did not conceive

    the individual apart from his public role as a member of the polis.

    It was Christianity that “differentiated European accomplishment

    from that of all other cultures around the world” (402). This did not

    happen immediately, but with the consolidation of Roman Catholicism

    and the development of a philosophical outlook, notably by Thomas

    Aquinas (1226–1274) who stressed that “that human intelligence is a

    gift of God, and that to apply human intelligence to understanding the

    world is not an aff ront to God but is pleasing to him”.

    This outlook, adopted by the Church, also taught “that human autonomy is a gift of God, and that the only way in which humans can realize the relationship with God that God intends is by exercising that autonomy” (403). However, the full development of individualism came with Protestantism and its encouragement of industriousness, persistent action,

    and empirical utilitarianism.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 13:31:00 UTC

  • WAR OF NORMAN CONQUEST ENGLISH CIVIL WAR WAR – KING PHILLIP’S WAR Abraham Doolit

    WAR OF NORMAN CONQUEST

    ENGLISH CIVIL WAR

    WAR – KING PHILLIP’S WAR

    Abraham Doolittle, who wrote his name “Abraham Dowlittell,” born in 1619 or 1620, m. Joane ALLING, of Kempston, Co. Bedford, Eng. He was with his bride in Boston as early as 1640, but removed to New Haven before 1642. He was seven times deputy from New Haven to the General Court at Hartford. On July 2, 1663, he m. (2) Abigail Moss, b. Apr. 10, 1652, dau of John Moss of New Haven. Both Doolittle and Moss removed to Wallingford, as founders of that town in 1670. When the church was founded in 1675, Mr. Doolittle was one of the thirteen original members. He was sergeant of the “first traine band” in 1673; and in King Philip’s war, 1675, his dwelling was fortified by a picket fort against an attack expected from the Indians led by King Philip in person. For a fuller record of Abraham Doolittle the reader is referred to the “Doolittle Family in America,” by William Frederick Doolittle, M.D. of Cleveland, O., to whom we are indebted for most of the material in this chapter. The numbers are the same as in his book. The Wallingford well of Abraham Doolittle is still in use. (1908). He died in 1690. He had fourteen children.

    –“King Philip’s War, sometimes called the First Indian War, Metacom’s War, Metacomet’s War, or Metacom’s Rebellion,[1] was an armed conflict between Native American inhabitants of present-day New England and English colonists and their Native American allies in 1675–78. The war is named after the main leader of the Native American side, Metacomet, known to the English as “King Philip”.[2] Major Benjamin Church emerged as the Puritan hero of the war; it was his company of Puritan rangers and Native American allies that finally hunted down and killed King Philip on August 12, 1676.[3] The war continued in northern New England (primarily in Maine at the New England and Acadia border) until a treaty was signed at Casco Bay in April 1678.[4]

    The war was the single greatest calamity to occur in seventeenth-century Puritan New England. In the space of little more than a year, twelve of the region’s towns were destroyed and many more damaged, the colony’s economy was all but ruined, and much of its population was killed, including one-tenth of all men available for military service.[5][6] More than half of New England’s towns were attacked by Native American warriors.[7]

    Nearly all the English colonies in America were settled without any significant English government support, as they were used chiefly as a safety valve to minimize religious and other conflicts in England. King Philip’s War was the beginning of the development of a greater American identity, for the colonists’ trials, without significant English government support, gave them a group identity separate and distinct from subjects of the Parliament of England and the Crown in England”–

    WAR – REVOLUTIONARY

    Samuel Doolittle, b. Feb. 24, 1729, Middletown, Conn.; m. July 4, 1751, Elizabeth Hubbard, b. Jan. 18, 1729-30, Glastonbury, Conn., dau of Joseph Hubbard and Elizabeth Hollister. ***Of their eleven children, seven served in the Revolutionary War.***

    General George Doolittle, b. June 14, 1759, Wallingford, Conn., where his parents resided for a few years and then ret. to Middletown. He m. 1783, Grace Wetmore, b. Dec. 3, 1766, Middletown, Conn., dau of Capt. Amos Wetmore and Rachel Parsons. Capt. Amos Wetmore who had served in the Rev. Army, united with Capt. Hugh White in the purchase of the Saquehada Patent of land and removed to it soon after White. For two years the nearest mill was forty miles away. In 1788 White and Wetmore built a grist mill and nearby a saw mill. When fire burned the saw mill then legal diffuculties arose. White was a Presbyterian and Wetmore a Congregationalist. In 1797 White threatened to cut down the dam and deprive Wetmore of the use of the water unless he (Wetmore) would become a Presbyterian and join Rev. Bethuel Todd’s congregation. (Annals of Oneida Co.) George Doolittle, at the age of seventeen enlisted , 1776, as a private in Capt. Churchill’s Co., Col. Comfort Sage’s Reg., Gen. Wadsworth’s Brigade, raised in June to reinforce Gen. Washington at N.Y., and which retreated Sept. 15, from the city; time expired Dec. 25, 1776. On Jan. 1, 1777, he enlisted in the company of Capt. David Humphrey, under Col. Return Jonathan Meigs; enlisted again April 7, 1777, for six weeks’ service at Peekskill. On May 1, 1778, he enlisted “for the war” in the 6th Reg. Conn. Line (Regulars), Col. Meigs, and served till 1783. In 1786 he followed his father-in-law to Whitestown and at the first town meeting, Apr. 7, 1789, he was chosen commissioner of highways. For many years he was supervisor. On Apr. 1, 1793, a meeting was held to organize a religious society and he was named on the committee. In 1800 the first brigade of militia of all the new part of New York was organized and he was commissioned Brigadier General, though others in that settlement had been commissioned officers in the Rev. Army. he was a mem. of the N.Y. Legislature, and served in the War of 1812. He was a ruling elder in the Presby. ch. He was stricken in the night with apoplexy (stroke) and died Feb. 21, 1825. The widow d. Aug. 27, 1836. There were twelve children.

    1273. Rev. Edgar Jared Doolittle (Joseph, Joseph, Capt. Joseph, Abraham), b. Oct. 19, 1810, New Haven, Conn., after his father’s death, rem. with mother and sister to Wallingford, Conn. Grad. 1836 Yale, taught the academy of Upper Houses, now Cromwell, for two years, and married June 8, 1842, Jane Elizabeth Sage, b. Dec. 4, 1820, dau of Lemuel Sage (Lewis Samuel, John, John, David), whose mother was Deborah Ranney. In 1838 he entered Yale Theo. Sem.; in Aug. 1839, was licensed by the So. Hartford Association. Grad. 1841, ord. and settled May 18, 1842, at Hebron, Conn. In 1852 rem. to Chester, Conn. and remained to 1869. In failing health he rem. to the old homestead in Wallingford, where he d. Feb. 1, 1883. On his tombstone is: “Faithful unto Death.” He is remembered by those who knew him as a man of rare excellence, sound in intellect, courageous in conviction and warm in his friendship.” The widow d. Sept. 27, 1903.

    WWII

    Jimmy Doolittle (of course)

    POSTWAR DECLINE

    The decline in our family has occurred since 1900. But the most obvious decline has occurred since 1950. I can guess why. But not sure. But there has certainly been regression toward the mean. (I’m an outlier in our family.) Too much outbreeding. In our particular branch I’m pretty sure my great grandmother, a Baldwin, seems to have had a deleterious genetic impact on all her descendants. On the other side, My mother is a perfect example, like her mother of Breton Celt.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-28 13:30:00 UTC

  • ONLY FOUR: HEGEL, SPENGLER, WEBER, MCNEIL –“I can think of only four individual

    ONLY FOUR: HEGEL, SPENGLER, WEBER, MCNEIL

    –“I can think of only four individuals, two philosophers of history, one

    sociologist, and one world historian, who have spoken in a wideranging

    way of:

    i) the “infinite drive,” “the irresistible trust” of the Occident,

    ii) the “energetic, imperativistic, and dynamic” soul of the West,

    iii) the “rational restlessness” of the West,

    iv) “the deep-rooted pugnacity and recklessness of Europeans”

    – Hegel, Spengler, Weber, and McNeill respectively.”– Ricardo Duchesne

    Well, I’m in agreement on the last three, and am pretty sure I’ll be forced to agree on Hegel – who gives me a headache. I have a very hard time with conceptual empathy, and he requires it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 17:30:00 UTC