Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • Define Caucasian (from Quora)

    Feb 4, 2020, 10:18 PM Caucasian is like many terms – as they evolve, we attribute different definitions to them. The term Caucasian was used in the census and was synonymous with white european christian. This evolved into the conventional term for european peoples: latin, germanic, slavic, finnic. Man is a self-domesticated animal. Domestication is achieved by neoteny and suppression of underclass (genetic load) reproduction by sexual selection and environmental selection. The primary difference between races (or subspecies depending upon your tolerance for the truth), is that we vary largely by the degree of neoteny (suppression of maturity) vs increase in rate and depth of matureity, and in adaptation to local climates and more importantly – disease gradients. There are many others including rates of identical twins, variations in cranial size, minor skull and muscle difference, large differences in body scent, variations in the distribution of spatial verbal abilities, succeptibility to certain diseases, and mental illnesses. However, almost all the meaningful(consequential) differences are variations in one trait: neoteny (domestication) – with east asians the least sexually developed, caucasians in the middle, and then Africans the most and fastest sexually developed. Almost all group differences in social cultural, and political order are caused by this variation. The other significant dimension is the size of our genetic loads (lower and underclasses). There is little difference in our global elites across the races. But our conflicts come from proximity to one another given the vastly different sizes of our workingl, lower, and underclasses. For example, when we compare IQ differences between races and subraces, we are comparing differences in the size of the classes. In warm climates genetic load survives, and sexual maturity and rates of reproduction increase – and in cold climates where people live indoors in close quarters for many months of the year, and must organize to maintain animals and food over winters, sexual and natural selection reduce the lower classes rapidly. So given our differences in the rate and depth of sexual maturity, and the difference in the size of our underclasses, this creates groups that display different behavior, and conflict over what acceptable behavior is, and conflict over the commons and institutions we desire. There are three or four surviving races (subspecies): West Eurasian, African, and Asian – and the fourth is the austronesian remainder of early african migrations. West eurasians include everyone who isn’t african, (iranic-dravidian), east asian, or austronesian. Genetically, morphologically/phenotypically, civilizationally, culturally we separate the west eurasian people into post-glacial proto-peoples: the southern branch of north african, semitic (marsh arab, afro-asiatic), the eastern branch: turkic, and the indo-european branch: european, iranic, anatolian (lost), and the iranic branch integrated (lost) in admixture in india. We use ‘Caucasian’ as a synonym for europeans from spain to the urals, an south to the caucuses mountains. However, in practice we use it as synonymous for european christendom, and ‘white’ synonymous with european christendom -excluding the people of the caucuses. Since the greeks, southern italians, and Sardianins are remnants of the anatolian migration we include them as europeans and caucasians. Edit

  • WESTERN INSTITUTIONS AROSE OUT OF DISTRIBUTED POWER

    Feb 5, 2020, 11:44 AM

    —“all these [european] institutions arose out of the progressive rationalization of fear and terror โ€” the true bases of the liberalistic *reciprocol state (which actually has no right of resistance, as herr Schmitt knew well)”— (((Gamhard McCoy)))

    THE INSTITUTIONS: Sovereignty, Duel, Court, Government, Monarchy.

    1. Constrain one another’s words with the duel.
    2. Constrain one another’s action with the court, having failed to constrain them with threat of the duel.
    3. Constrain a group, or industry with the court of commons for having failed to constrain one another with the court.
    4. Constrain a government with an election for having failed to constrain individuals, groups, or industries.
    5. Constrain a monarchy with a revolution for having failed to constrain the government.

    They did? Conquerors thought in terms of fear and terror when their gods and mythos put them equal to gods, and they conquered everything from Spain to the edge of china? Those institutions arose out of the necessity of a small number of professional warriors dependent upon expensive technology (horse, bronze, chariot) that could not pay for a standing army and were dependent upon raising voluntary militia due to the inability of western peoples (horses, cattle, grasslands) to concentrate capital as was possible in the flood river valley civilizations (grains) and pastoralist early neolithic farmers (sheep, grain). I don’t make errors. Because I don’t read literature (lies). I study Archaeology, Technology, Economics, Military and Legal records are evidence – literature is fiction and deceit. ๐Ÿ˜‰ You can’t do that because it would falsify your entire mythology, network of lies, and method of excuses making by lies. I know. It’s OK. You can’t help it. It’s genetic. ON SCHMITT(GERMANY) IN CONTEXT Schimtt btw was following the natural human bias expressed in intellectual tradition of trying to solve the problem of a stable state in a period of necessity of rapid adaptation, when the deliberative (adversarial) model of political (middle class) compromise was insufficiently responsive, and required extraordinary impositions on the investments of stakeholders. As is usual for continentals, who cannot manage to escape the dependence upon obedience as a means of avoiding interpersonal conflict, competition, and compromise, it never occurred to Schmidt that the anglo-saxon pre-napoleonic method of political decidability, or it’s roman and it’s greek predecessors, nor its proto-germanic predecessors, nor its western indo-european predecessors placed decisions with the family, the jury/thang, the warriors/nobles, or the chieftain/king depending upon the category of the question at hand. In times of war we give unto generals (dictators), in times of peace we give over to the middle class (republics) in times of windfall we give over to the people (democracy). So that the problem is that the pursuit of power by people, middle, nobility, and monarchy were unable to discover (as had the anglos) the means of transferring power dependent upon the condition – and that as warfare transitioned from purely territorial agrarian to trade and industrial economic and ideological warfare, that having failed to articulate their customs as formal law prohibited them from discovering rules for the distribution and concentration of power as context required. Schmidtt like all continentals since the french revolution, was another idiot trying to restore the hierarchy of church(political judiciary), judiciary(material judiciary), monarchy(military) burgher(middle class) and labor, without realizing that they were still trying to escape the church and restore traditional rule – but instead were still stuck on countering anglo empiricism and its continuous competition and trying to recreate secular theological harmony. The continent is a catastrophe with the french trying to recreate latin church authoritarianism, the germans lost in trying to work away guilt that they should not have for resisting russian jews and french authority with wishful thinking instead of monarchical and traditional restoration, with the slavs understanding completely, and the Russians waiting for revenge.

  • WESTERN INSTITUTIONS AROSE OUT OF DISTRIBUTED POWER

    Feb 5, 2020, 11:44 AM

    —“all these [european] institutions arose out of the progressive rationalization of fear and terror โ€” the true bases of the liberalistic *reciprocol state (which actually has no right of resistance, as herr Schmitt knew well)”— (((Gamhard McCoy)))

    THE INSTITUTIONS: Sovereignty, Duel, Court, Government, Monarchy.

    1. Constrain one another’s words with the duel.
    2. Constrain one another’s action with the court, having failed to constrain them with threat of the duel.
    3. Constrain a group, or industry with the court of commons for having failed to constrain one another with the court.
    4. Constrain a government with an election for having failed to constrain individuals, groups, or industries.
    5. Constrain a monarchy with a revolution for having failed to constrain the government.

    They did? Conquerors thought in terms of fear and terror when their gods and mythos put them equal to gods, and they conquered everything from Spain to the edge of china? Those institutions arose out of the necessity of a small number of professional warriors dependent upon expensive technology (horse, bronze, chariot) that could not pay for a standing army and were dependent upon raising voluntary militia due to the inability of western peoples (horses, cattle, grasslands) to concentrate capital as was possible in the flood river valley civilizations (grains) and pastoralist early neolithic farmers (sheep, grain). I don’t make errors. Because I don’t read literature (lies). I study Archaeology, Technology, Economics, Military and Legal records are evidence – literature is fiction and deceit. ๐Ÿ˜‰ You can’t do that because it would falsify your entire mythology, network of lies, and method of excuses making by lies. I know. It’s OK. You can’t help it. It’s genetic. ON SCHMITT(GERMANY) IN CONTEXT Schimtt btw was following the natural human bias expressed in intellectual tradition of trying to solve the problem of a stable state in a period of necessity of rapid adaptation, when the deliberative (adversarial) model of political (middle class) compromise was insufficiently responsive, and required extraordinary impositions on the investments of stakeholders. As is usual for continentals, who cannot manage to escape the dependence upon obedience as a means of avoiding interpersonal conflict, competition, and compromise, it never occurred to Schmidt that the anglo-saxon pre-napoleonic method of political decidability, or it’s roman and it’s greek predecessors, nor its proto-germanic predecessors, nor its western indo-european predecessors placed decisions with the family, the jury/thang, the warriors/nobles, or the chieftain/king depending upon the category of the question at hand. In times of war we give unto generals (dictators), in times of peace we give over to the middle class (republics) in times of windfall we give over to the people (democracy). So that the problem is that the pursuit of power by people, middle, nobility, and monarchy were unable to discover (as had the anglos) the means of transferring power dependent upon the condition – and that as warfare transitioned from purely territorial agrarian to trade and industrial economic and ideological warfare, that having failed to articulate their customs as formal law prohibited them from discovering rules for the distribution and concentration of power as context required. Schmidtt like all continentals since the french revolution, was another idiot trying to restore the hierarchy of church(political judiciary), judiciary(material judiciary), monarchy(military) burgher(middle class) and labor, without realizing that they were still trying to escape the church and restore traditional rule – but instead were still stuck on countering anglo empiricism and its continuous competition and trying to recreate secular theological harmony. The continent is a catastrophe with the french trying to recreate latin church authoritarianism, the germans lost in trying to work away guilt that they should not have for resisting russian jews and french authority with wishful thinking instead of monarchical and traditional restoration, with the slavs understanding completely, and the Russians waiting for revenge.

  • The Constancy of The Western Tradition Over 3500 Years – Regardless of Propaganda

    Feb 5, 2020, 12:03 PM

    —“Your reified medieval “associations” are products of anarcho-social โ€” not state โ€” covenants”—(((Gamhard McCoy)))

    Bronze age, mediterranean age, continental age, north sea age, atlantic age institutions are continuous products of customary law made necessary by military strategy, given geography, technology, numbers, and have been consistent for at least 3500 years. A sovereign man requires the self, a holding requires family, a manor adds employees, a princedom adds counsellors, a state adds bureaucracy, and empire unites states. But they are just names for the same process at increasing scales producing a homogenous hierarchy organized by the same simple rule: sovereignty. (I know what you are paraphrasing, but quoting others words says nothing about demonstrated behavior – which is the difference between myth/literature/propaganda and law/science/records. Notice how I only mention literary works in order to illustrate that they are almost universally wrong – which is why the history of thought is either a set of lies by the bottom(theology and mythology) or a set of lies by the middle ( philosophy and literature). Those in power just rule and leave evidence. They have no one to convince.) There were only three degrees available to our ancestors, reflecting the two priesthoods: Theology(Social), and Law(Political), and the practical: medicine(Physical). Tripartism in everything.

  • The Constancy of The Western Tradition Over 3500 Years – Regardless of Propaganda

    Feb 5, 2020, 12:03 PM

    —“Your reified medieval “associations” are products of anarcho-social โ€” not state โ€” covenants”—(((Gamhard McCoy)))

    Bronze age, mediterranean age, continental age, north sea age, atlantic age institutions are continuous products of customary law made necessary by military strategy, given geography, technology, numbers, and have been consistent for at least 3500 years. A sovereign man requires the self, a holding requires family, a manor adds employees, a princedom adds counsellors, a state adds bureaucracy, and empire unites states. But they are just names for the same process at increasing scales producing a homogenous hierarchy organized by the same simple rule: sovereignty. (I know what you are paraphrasing, but quoting others words says nothing about demonstrated behavior – which is the difference between myth/literature/propaganda and law/science/records. Notice how I only mention literary works in order to illustrate that they are almost universally wrong – which is why the history of thought is either a set of lies by the bottom(theology and mythology) or a set of lies by the middle ( philosophy and literature). Those in power just rule and leave evidence. They have no one to convince.) There were only three degrees available to our ancestors, reflecting the two priesthoods: Theology(Social), and Law(Political), and the practical: medicine(Physical). Tripartism in everything.

  • Tripartism and Trifunctionalism

    Feb 6, 2020, 10:48 AM Under Social Tripartism and Elite Trifunctionalism, we find

    1. The Scientific and Technical ‘Priesthood’ (The material Universe of those who work)
    2. The Juridical ‘Priesthood’ (Via Negativa – actions of Man) – Those who fight
    3. The Political ‘Priesthood” (via-positiva – organization of man) – Those who pray

    While these three forces of elites al compete with one another in an ever shifting equilibrium, the political priesthood is unsettleld on method:

    1. Material: History and Realism
    2. Mental: Philosophy and Idealism
    3. Emotional: Theology and Mythology

  • Tripartism and Trifunctionalism

    Feb 6, 2020, 10:48 AM Under Social Tripartism and Elite Trifunctionalism, we find

    1. The Scientific and Technical ‘Priesthood’ (The material Universe of those who work)
    2. The Juridical ‘Priesthood’ (Via Negativa – actions of Man) – Those who fight
    3. The Political ‘Priesthood” (via-positiva – organization of man) – Those who pray

    While these three forces of elites al compete with one another in an ever shifting equilibrium, the political priesthood is unsettleld on method:

    1. Material: History and Realism
    2. Mental: Philosophy and Idealism
    3. Emotional: Theology and Mythology

  • Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    Feb 7, 2020, 7:52 AM Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    —“There is not a single example throughout human history that you can point to to prove that formula wrong over any extended period of time. It’s been tried, it always fails.” —JC Trott

    —“Multiculturalism is a euphemism for multiracialism. Multiculturalism doesn’t work and will never work. Countries have been organized on the basis of race since the dawn of civilization. A nation is a group of people living in a region who share a common race, language, and religion. Most of the world’s countries are ethnostates: Japan, China, Israel, multiple black countries in Africa, and multiple Arab Muslim countries in the ME. Only in white countries is “diversity” or “multiculturalism” being pushed, and that is because non-whites want to enjoy the safety and prosperity of white society. But they will necessarily destroy it if they come en masse. Therefore, whites are in the unique position of having to forcibly stop third-world invaders and remove those already here. If they do not, their white societies will be lost. And Jewish people are leading the propaganda campaign against whites from doing so, both by demonizing those who already advocate this as “racists” and by stupefying those who haven’t awakened with their “diversity is our strength” brainwashing. People aren’t flooding into Vietnam, El Salvador, Somalia, or Egypt en masse from other parts of the world. They are only doing this into the West (white countries). “—John Morrison

  • Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    Feb 7, 2020, 7:52 AM Diversity + Proximity = Conflict

    —“There is not a single example throughout human history that you can point to to prove that formula wrong over any extended period of time. It’s been tried, it always fails.” —JC Trott

    —“Multiculturalism is a euphemism for multiracialism. Multiculturalism doesn’t work and will never work. Countries have been organized on the basis of race since the dawn of civilization. A nation is a group of people living in a region who share a common race, language, and religion. Most of the world’s countries are ethnostates: Japan, China, Israel, multiple black countries in Africa, and multiple Arab Muslim countries in the ME. Only in white countries is “diversity” or “multiculturalism” being pushed, and that is because non-whites want to enjoy the safety and prosperity of white society. But they will necessarily destroy it if they come en masse. Therefore, whites are in the unique position of having to forcibly stop third-world invaders and remove those already here. If they do not, their white societies will be lost. And Jewish people are leading the propaganda campaign against whites from doing so, both by demonizing those who already advocate this as “racists” and by stupefying those who haven’t awakened with their “diversity is our strength” brainwashing. People aren’t flooding into Vietnam, El Salvador, Somalia, or Egypt en masse from other parts of the world. They are only doing this into the West (white countries). “—John Morrison

  • Diversity Means Division

    Feb 7, 2020, 9:15 AM

    —“Diversity is synonym for Division and Division’s not a strength it’s a weakness. Strength arises from Unity not Division. Diversity between nations is a strength for humanity, but Division within Nations is a weakness.”–Bic Verger —“Diversity isn’t necessarily synonymous with division, it is however necessarily antonymous to equality.”—Martin ล tฤ›pรกn

    Equality is made possible by appealing to ending status and power competition using kin selection. Devolve the federal government once again and restore the constitution to an alliance of nation-states. Europe solved this problem and only napoleon undermined it. A large number of small homogenous nation states produces a market for different commons producing polities and the greatest tolerance for reciprocity and proportionality