Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • Aesthetics and Post-Modernism

    by Daniel Gurpide Multiculturalism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multicultural society, standards and traditions are abandoned. European standards are necessarily too ‘Eurocentric’; no group may impose its standards on any other—nor even maintain its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no longer a ‘centre.’ The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos. The real danger of art for egalitarians is that it offers ideals and models, and those ideals—in classical European art—are not egalitarian ideals, nor are the models politically correct. If you are trying to prepare students to be rootless, cosmopolitan citizens of the New World Order, you certainly do not want them to come into contact with the undemocratic spirit of Homer or Shakespeare. From it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an avant-garde which revels in the equally empty perverse. Again, as we begin to live in a society of ugly people, wherever we look we see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty—a people inundated with the bland and ugly, mingled with the weird and trendy and ugly—is sickened and greatly weakened.

  • Aesthetics and Eugenics

    by Daniel Gurpide In 1920, Knight Dunlap, President of the American Psychological Association, published “Personal Beauty and Racial Betterment. “ Dunlap’s thesis is that what is called personal beauty really inspires the emotional appreciation of the many qualities that make an individual a fit and healthy parent for a fit and healthy next generation of one’s race. Beauty is a measure of racial fitness for the future. Men and women long for it in their mates, even if they do not understand the nature or significance of that longing. The desire for a beautiful mate is an ineradicable, primordial urge. It is an instinctive part of us. It guides us on our recently interrupted upward journey to higher intelligence, greater strength and power—and increased consciousness and wisdom. Dunlap asserts that the preservation of beauty is inseparable from the preservation of all civilised values and progress. To lose one is to lose the other. Further, Dunlap warns that our civilisation is fostering increased human ugliness and a withering of human beauty so drastic that only radical and strenuous change may suffice to reverse the process. What is personal beauty? Dunlap says that it varies distinctly from race to race, ‘but the type which is highest in value tends to approximate the European type, wherever the European type becomes known.’ What is personal beauty for Europeans? There are a great many markers of beauty applying to both sexes. In some cases, these are also marks of an ‘advanced’ race, from a phylogenetic point of view: characteristics which signify the greatest possible difference from more primitive forms. Considering the profile of the face, one may note the facial angle: the angle, relative to the horizon when a man is standing normally, of a line drawn from the greatest protuberance of the jaw to the most prominent part of the forehead. The average facial angle of the European race is the closest to vertical of any human race. Non-human creatures have lower and lower facial angles as we make our way from the more advanced to the more primitive. Less advanced and smaller-brained creatures (and races) have a lower, more sloping forehead (and hence less capacity in the frontal regions of the brain). More primitive creatures and races also tend to have larger teeth, and larger jaws which jut forward, hence making the facial angle ever closer to the horizontal. A man or woman with a high or ‘noble’ forehead is better looking to us than one with a steeply sloping forehead. The latter we instinctively view as primitive and ugly, whether we use those words or not. The protruding jaw or the underdeveloped chin and outsized nose give—to European eyes—the human profile a convex and snout-like appearance. Hence, they are bars to beauty, as Europeans perceive it. We may not be conscious of the reason, but our instincts are telling us that the highly evolved is beautiful and the primitive looking is not. The cast of expression of the human face may be the most important single factor in personal beauty. Even in classical sculpture, where the ideal of European beauty is literally carved in stone, and the entire nude form is revealed, it is still the sublimely high and spiritual expression of the face which arrests our attention more than any other single quality. The face is the site of the most complex muscle structure anywhere in the body—with a complex nerve structure to match—hence giving our faces an extremely wide and subtle variation of expression. With the dependence of these many muscles on the structure, health, and current state of the nerves, it is unsurprising that much may be learned of the temperament, state of health, and intelligence of a man or woman by studying his or her face. The face and, to a lesser extent, the other parts of the body, offer a constant and multifaceted reflection of the brain and nervous system within. Clearly, we find our instinctive ideals of beauty—not only as expressed in our sexual selection, but also in our art when uncorrupted and free—in these respects far outstrip reality. Very few embody all such ideals anywhere close to perfection. However, they are our ideals, and insofar as these ideals are favoured in our selection of who will be the mothers and fathers of generations to come, they will indeed offer a glimpse of unborn generations: a glimpse of what will be; a glimpse of the future.

  • Aesthetics and Eugenics

    by Daniel Gurpide In 1920, Knight Dunlap, President of the American Psychological Association, published “Personal Beauty and Racial Betterment. “ Dunlap’s thesis is that what is called personal beauty really inspires the emotional appreciation of the many qualities that make an individual a fit and healthy parent for a fit and healthy next generation of one’s race. Beauty is a measure of racial fitness for the future. Men and women long for it in their mates, even if they do not understand the nature or significance of that longing. The desire for a beautiful mate is an ineradicable, primordial urge. It is an instinctive part of us. It guides us on our recently interrupted upward journey to higher intelligence, greater strength and power—and increased consciousness and wisdom. Dunlap asserts that the preservation of beauty is inseparable from the preservation of all civilised values and progress. To lose one is to lose the other. Further, Dunlap warns that our civilisation is fostering increased human ugliness and a withering of human beauty so drastic that only radical and strenuous change may suffice to reverse the process. What is personal beauty? Dunlap says that it varies distinctly from race to race, ‘but the type which is highest in value tends to approximate the European type, wherever the European type becomes known.’ What is personal beauty for Europeans? There are a great many markers of beauty applying to both sexes. In some cases, these are also marks of an ‘advanced’ race, from a phylogenetic point of view: characteristics which signify the greatest possible difference from more primitive forms. Considering the profile of the face, one may note the facial angle: the angle, relative to the horizon when a man is standing normally, of a line drawn from the greatest protuberance of the jaw to the most prominent part of the forehead. The average facial angle of the European race is the closest to vertical of any human race. Non-human creatures have lower and lower facial angles as we make our way from the more advanced to the more primitive. Less advanced and smaller-brained creatures (and races) have a lower, more sloping forehead (and hence less capacity in the frontal regions of the brain). More primitive creatures and races also tend to have larger teeth, and larger jaws which jut forward, hence making the facial angle ever closer to the horizontal. A man or woman with a high or ‘noble’ forehead is better looking to us than one with a steeply sloping forehead. The latter we instinctively view as primitive and ugly, whether we use those words or not. The protruding jaw or the underdeveloped chin and outsized nose give—to European eyes—the human profile a convex and snout-like appearance. Hence, they are bars to beauty, as Europeans perceive it. We may not be conscious of the reason, but our instincts are telling us that the highly evolved is beautiful and the primitive looking is not. The cast of expression of the human face may be the most important single factor in personal beauty. Even in classical sculpture, where the ideal of European beauty is literally carved in stone, and the entire nude form is revealed, it is still the sublimely high and spiritual expression of the face which arrests our attention more than any other single quality. The face is the site of the most complex muscle structure anywhere in the body—with a complex nerve structure to match—hence giving our faces an extremely wide and subtle variation of expression. With the dependence of these many muscles on the structure, health, and current state of the nerves, it is unsurprising that much may be learned of the temperament, state of health, and intelligence of a man or woman by studying his or her face. The face and, to a lesser extent, the other parts of the body, offer a constant and multifaceted reflection of the brain and nervous system within. Clearly, we find our instinctive ideals of beauty—not only as expressed in our sexual selection, but also in our art when uncorrupted and free—in these respects far outstrip reality. Very few embody all such ideals anywhere close to perfection. However, they are our ideals, and insofar as these ideals are favoured in our selection of who will be the mothers and fathers of generations to come, they will indeed offer a glimpse of unborn generations: a glimpse of what will be; a glimpse of the future.

  • Just say it. “These are *my* people. My kin. My past. My future. Mine.” And then

    Just say it. “These are *my* people. My kin. My past. My future. Mine.” And then act like it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 18:55:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post. AESTHETICS AND POST-MODERNISM by Daniel Gurpide Mu

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    AESTHETICS AND POST-MODERNISM
    by Daniel Gurpide

    Multiculturalism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multicultural society, standards and traditions are abandoned. European standards are necessarily too ‘Eurocentric’; no group may impose its standards on any other—nor even maintain its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no longer a ‘centre.’ The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos.

    The real danger of art for egalitarians is that it offers ideals and models, and those ideals—in classical European art—are not egalitarian ideals, nor are the models politically correct. If you are trying to prepare students to be rootless, cosmopolitan citizens of the New World Order, you certainly do not want them to come into contact with the undemocratic spirit of Homer or Shakespeare.

    From it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an avant-garde which revels in the equally empty perverse. Again, as we begin to live in a society of ugly people, wherever we look we see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty—a people inundated with the bland and ugly, mingled with the weird and trendy and ugly—is sickened and greatly weakened.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 13:46:09 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN MALE CONFLICT The due

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN MALE CONFLICT
    The duel for honor vs sniping for harm. We have see from thousands of video examples, that black culture habituates and promote ‘sniping’ (sucker punching), ganging-up, beating-while-down, and worse, beating while unconscious. This is antithetical to white culture, that has habituated the duel for thousands of years. In the white history of the duel, two men (and women for that matter) may settle disputes with judicial sanction as long as they are equally equipped, no others interfere, and no ‘advantage taken’ when a man is down. However, if any of these rules is violated, the seconds (insurers of each party) may kill in the present or future those who violate it. This means all men are sovereign. But this is antithetical to peoples outside of the indo european tradition of judicial duels between sovereigns.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 13:25:31 UTC

  • CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN MALE CONFLICT The duel for honor vs sniping for harm. We

    CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN MALE CONFLICT

    The duel for honor vs sniping for harm. We have see from thousands of video examples, that black culture habituates and promote ‘sniping’ (sucker punching), ganging-up, beating-while-down, and worse, beating while unconscious. This is antithetical to white culture, that has habituated the duel for thousands of years. In the white history of the duel, two men (and women for that matter) may settle disputes with judicial sanction as long as they are equally equipped, no others interfere, and no ‘advantage taken’ when a man is down. However, if any of these rules is violated, the seconds (insurers of each party) may kill in the present or future those who violate it. This means all men are sovereign. But this is antithetical to peoples outside of the indo european tradition of judicial duels between sovereigns.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 09:25:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. AESTHETICS: ART > DECORATION > CRAFT We have

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    AESTHETICS: ART > DECORATION > CRAFT

    We have evolved these disciplines for very obvious reasons:
    – Art (The social, and Monumental, content).
    – Decoration (the personal and environmental)
    – Craft (the material)

    More is always better.
    – More content.
    – More decoration
    – More craft

    Why? They represent the accumulation of intellectual (art), emotional (design) and physical (craft) calories.

    Bounty. Art like all things that are beautiful, conveys bounty (fertility), which is why we are attracted to it.

    See? Everything is very simple and very clear once you understand it.

    EVERYTHING IS SIMPLE. THE UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE. IT’S THE LIES WE TELL TO MASK OUR IGNORANCE THAT CREATE COMPLEXITY.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:27:19 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MODERN ART – THE ART MOVEMENT AFTER THE INVEN

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MODERN ART – THE ART MOVEMENT AFTER THE INVENTION OF PHOTOGRAPHY THROUGH THE END OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

    A couple of things happened that we need to take into account.
    1 – Photography destroyed the artists capacity to earn just like photoshop destroyed the art supply business (which I was a significant player in) and drove everyone to digital.
    2 – There was a HUGE increase in demand for decorative arts as the size of the middle class expanded.
    3 – The urban apartment and war era panel products and mass manufacturing produced an environment unsuitable for curvalinear arts
    4 – Immigration created the problem of producing decoration for new groups who neither wanted to reflect their (peasant) ancestry but wanted to signal their new influences.
    5 – The marxists exploited this like they did all other immoral market opportunities.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:21:00 UTC

  • Vacher de Lapouge

    by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA. I don‘t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger). The text in a previous post here: [ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ] is a summary of “Les Selections Sociales“ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect). Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933. In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural‘ discipline.