Form: Excerpt

  • THE FEET OF CLAY (STAGNATION) by Bjarg Jonsson Each pagan god or goddess typical

    THE FEET OF CLAY (STAGNATION)

    by Bjarg Jonsson

    Each pagan god or goddess typically contained well rounded attributes, not just one. Freya, usually associated with sex and fertility, received first choice of the battle slain for her hall. Freya was followed by some warriors as their patron goddess.

    Thor, the god of the common man, was also associated with fertility. His hammer was placed in the lap of a new bride, to bless the marriage with children.

    Odin/Woden/Wotan, the god of the nobility, was not very popular. He was associated with death (the business of nobility). He was associated with the boatman, ferryman, disapater, selector and conductor of the slain. God of the subconscious and dark places. The cost of reciprocity with Odin could be death, he is a collector of the select dead.

    All of these gods were caught up in an epic struggle, which was cyclical. The cycle would end and begin again. It was a mythology, which brought order. Each diety could play the central part for that diety’s followers.

    The big G god, is everything all together and therefore unknowable or comprehensible. Pagan gods are not everywhere or all knowing.

    The Romans of the time considered Christians to be atheists. The big G was beyond understanding and certainly not a Phonecian thunder god adopted as the Hebrew big G or the rabbi version of Mythris.

    The Christians gave themselves feet of clay when they went from mythology to saying their cosmology was fact and without error.

    The great falling away was in the cards when they lost the capability of killing people for pointing out the obvious.

    The power is in the myth (J. Campbell). If not then the sword, I suppose.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-29 11:15:00 UTC

  • P Is a Method of Administering Psychotherapy En-Masse.

    P IS A METHOD OF ADMINISTERING PSYCHOTHERAPY EN-MASSE. by Ryan Drummond

    —“Even political movements can, not without justice, claim to be psychotherapy in the grand manner. The outbreak of war cured many a compulsion neurosis.” — Carl Jung (The Practise of Psychotherapy, p. 6)

    P is a method of administering psychotherapy en-masse.

  • P Is a Method of Administering Psychotherapy En-Masse.

    P IS A METHOD OF ADMINISTERING PSYCHOTHERAPY EN-MASSE. by Ryan Drummond

    —“Even political movements can, not without justice, claim to be psychotherapy in the grand manner. The outbreak of war cured many a compulsion neurosis.” — Carl Jung (The Practise of Psychotherapy, p. 6)

    P is a method of administering psychotherapy en-masse.

  • This Is Why – Some Ideas Are Catastrophically Harmful – Because They Are Sources of Ignorance.

    by Daniel Roland Anderson In my teens, and as late as my early 20s, I was into the conspiracy theories. I think I was jumping from noticing patterns to imputing conscious intent and organization to the (malignant) patterns because my Mormon upbringing taught me to look for The Plan of Salvation in everything. Pattern recognition may get hijacked, or something, at a critical stage of development. Not everyone who fails to grow out of this way of seeing the world is incapable, or lacks agency. I’m only just now being able to guess with hindsight at what was going on with me. If I tagged the people I’m thinking of in this comment, they’d possibly/probably be offended because I said when I used to think like this, and used terms like “grow out of” to describe a process that they might want to take a look at. I think this category may be a big one. By Francis Zhou I share a similar experience, having spent my formative years in a protestant church. I have to admit, running with the herd was comforting, however similar to you, I “grew out of it”, after realizing the constrains Christian teachings placed on my growth. By Curt Doolittle Well, when I say ‘some ideas are sources of ignorance’ (which I got from popper) this is what I mean. Some ideas are catastrophic because they prevent better ideas. Hence need for truth.

  • This Is Why – Some Ideas Are Catastrophically Harmful – Because They Are Sources of Ignorance.

    by Daniel Roland Anderson In my teens, and as late as my early 20s, I was into the conspiracy theories. I think I was jumping from noticing patterns to imputing conscious intent and organization to the (malignant) patterns because my Mormon upbringing taught me to look for The Plan of Salvation in everything. Pattern recognition may get hijacked, or something, at a critical stage of development. Not everyone who fails to grow out of this way of seeing the world is incapable, or lacks agency. I’m only just now being able to guess with hindsight at what was going on with me. If I tagged the people I’m thinking of in this comment, they’d possibly/probably be offended because I said when I used to think like this, and used terms like “grow out of” to describe a process that they might want to take a look at. I think this category may be a big one. By Francis Zhou I share a similar experience, having spent my formative years in a protestant church. I have to admit, running with the herd was comforting, however similar to you, I “grew out of it”, after realizing the constrains Christian teachings placed on my growth. By Curt Doolittle Well, when I say ‘some ideas are sources of ignorance’ (which I got from popper) this is what I mean. Some ideas are catastrophic because they prevent better ideas. Hence need for truth.

  • Pull the Veil from Your Mind

    —“Far away in Ukraine, he suggests to disaffected men in the West that _they_ should start a civil war, (he’s the “ideas guy” you see), but using that word requires courage. Instead, he hides behind romantic words like “revolution”, as if war is some beautiful poem. … He’s a snake. … I followed him for years, recommended him to others to follow, even learned a few things I still hold dear as concepts. But the veil dropped once or twice and it was revealed how he uses his intelligence in a corrupting way.”— Phil@Readomain.com @readomain

    [H]ere, in the USA, taking care of an ailing parent rather than putting her in a home, he shows up to fight in virginia, educates others one how our civilization was undermined, writes a reformation of the constitution to restore and preserve it, works within the law – until then. I’m a revolutionary. In the tradition of the founders and their constitution, the british constitution, the common law, the european development of rule of law of common law, the germanic law, and the western indo european law of the ancients and their predecessors. I pull from your face, your rhetoric, and your mind, the veil of ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking – that there is any solution possible other than the same revolution each of our ancestors has used to restore freedom, liberty, and sovereignty – and their fruits. I never wore such a veil over my mind. You were just terrified when I pulled the veil from yours. So man up, show up, fight, and win.

  • People Are *Very* Different from Each Other

    by John Mark It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us. This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person. Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies increases the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.) As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives. Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute intent to be evil onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly being themselves (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians). So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.” So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites. I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate. And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust. Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.) One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.

    • Many Christians say “If you’re not Christian you’re not good enough.” (While Christian pastors/priests refuse to say what is necessary to save the West. Why would we follow or submit to them? It’s ludicrous. Don’t worry, Christians don’t follow through on this threat – 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. They’ll always end up following the best leaders they can get which rarely come from their own ranks.)
    • The “alt-right” says “Talk about joos in every conversation/video, and tell everyone how Hitler was right, and provide me a sentimental religion around the wonderfulness of the white race, or you’re not good enough.”
    • Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”

    The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us. No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people. The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”. Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses. We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.

  • People Are *Very* Different from Each Other

    by John Mark It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us. This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person. Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies increases the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.) As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives. Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute intent to be evil onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly being themselves (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians). So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.” So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites. I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate. And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust. Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.) One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.

    • Many Christians say “If you’re not Christian you’re not good enough.” (While Christian pastors/priests refuse to say what is necessary to save the West. Why would we follow or submit to them? It’s ludicrous. Don’t worry, Christians don’t follow through on this threat – 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. They’ll always end up following the best leaders they can get which rarely come from their own ranks.)
    • The “alt-right” says “Talk about joos in every conversation/video, and tell everyone how Hitler was right, and provide me a sentimental religion around the wonderfulness of the white race, or you’re not good enough.”
    • Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”

    The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us. No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people. The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”. Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses. We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.

  • THE ROMAN EXAMPLE OF EUROPEAN THOUGHT by Francesco Principi (important) The clai

    THE ROMAN EXAMPLE OF EUROPEAN THOUGHT

    by Francesco Principi (important)

    The claim that the Roman Empire was a legally sanctioned multiracial state is another common rhetorical figure used by cultural Marxists to create an image of the West as a civilization that has long worked to create a universal race humanity mixed. This is a lie to which the patriots of Western Civilization must not yield.

    Rome’s greatest contribution to Western Civilization was the development of a formal-rational legal order characterized by the logical consistency of its laws, the precise classification of its different types of law, the precise definition of its terms, and its a process that leads to the formulation of specific rules in which questions were asked, various responses from jurists were collected, and coherent solutions were offered. It was a legal system engaged in judicial decisions based on impartiality and fairness for all citizens.

    Basically what the Romans did was to apply Greek philosophy, in particular the Aristotelian inductive logic of moving from experience to certainty, putting together the common elements in the particular cases observed.

    However, it would be a serious mistake to imagine Roman citizenship as a conscious effort by ethnic Romans to recognize the common humanity of all ethnic groups. First, the extension of citizenship was part of the process of Romanization, acculturation and integration of the peoples defeated in the empire; it had been conceived as a political measure to ensure the loyalty of the defeated peoples, and the acquisition of citizenship took place gradually, with the promise of further rights with greater assimilation; and, until the end, not all Roman citizens had the same rights, with the Romans and Italics in general enjoying a higher status.

    Secondly, it is worth noting that this process of Romanization and expansion of citizenship was effective only in the Western (Indo-European) half of the Empire, whose inhabitants were White; while in the East, in relation to the non-Italic inhabitants of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Judea and Syria, this had only superficial effects.

    There is clearly a link between rationalization and universalization that generates an abstract language that reveals a common humanity. This is the reason why Western thinkers always write in terms of “man”, “humanity”, even if they actually think of themselves, be they Greeks, Romans, or Germans.

    **Westerners have created a universal language in view of becoming the only people on this planet to employ their rational faculties in an autonomous way of legislating in terms of their precepts, passing over the particularities of time, custom, and lineage and learning to reason on universal issues. The Europeans are the true thinkers of this planet, the only ones who have freed their minds from extra-rational burdens and needs, to face the big issues “objectively” from the point of view of the “top view”, typical of no one in particular. But we must realize that it is the vision of the only European man.**

    Therefore, it would be anachronistic to project on the Romans a program similar to our current reality of immigration / diversity, a projection implemented with the conscious aim of undermining European pride and identity and of creating a mixed-race population. Cultural Marxism in control of our universities are simply using deceptive arguments to make Europeans think that what is happening today is part of the natural course of Western Civilization. This form of intellectual manipulation of students is now rampant in academia.

    Civic nationalism was uniquely Western, but it is important to be aware that the current pathological obsession of the West with diversity as dating back to the Greek or Roman era is a mistake. In an attempt to understand our immigration policies and obsession with diversity, we would achieve important results. The sensible response that should be reached in examining the debate between civic and ethnic nationalism is that historical research validates the idea that European nation-states were founded around a strong ethnic core, even if there were minorities coexisting with majorities. Western European states have developed liberal civic institutions within this ethnic core. The inclination of human beings is to have a preference for their fellow men.

    To say that this preference is an irrational disposition imposed from above by a regressive elite is false. Ethnocentrism is a rational disposition compatible with civil liberties. Civil liberties are in line with a collective sense of ethnic-cultural belonging.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 05:32:00 UTC

  • A COMPETITION FOR CONTROL AND CONSUMPTION OF THE COMMONS – SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION b

    A COMPETITION FOR CONTROL AND CONSUMPTION OF THE COMMONS – SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

    by Bill Joslin

    —“…the minute you give up on your other classes, you give up on the commons.”– CurtD

    As soon as social variation gives way to social diversity – regardless of where those dividing line are carved – social stratification becomes competition over the commons. Not so much that we given up on the commons, but rather the point at which commons are no longer viewed as “shared common property”, – but rather viewed as shared private property. Politics becomes a competition for control and consumption of the commons.

    I think there’s a subtler understanding to property en toto that gets overlooked.

    We intuit that we defend property by the investment (born cost, contribution) into a property that we’ll bear additional costs to maintain control/access.

    There’s a flip side to this condition. We invest also because we rely upon that property. i.e. lower middle classes rely upon commons for survival – and this reliance forms part of their interest in the property. This reliance then motivates investment.

    How is this relevant? One can invest into a property, but never use our rely upon it. The upper classes don’t need most commons to survive, but form the substantial contribution to it. Where as the lower and middle classes rely heavily upon the commons and thus will seek to invest and defend it.

    This creates a convergence of different types of incentives between different stakeholder concerns. The interplay between them results in robust care for the commons.

    Without a militia, those whose stake in the commons revolves around reliance, have no means to protect their interests, and thus this robust care for the commons declines.

    And the ecology of stakeholder interest devolve into seeking control or, whinging about control, from one stakeholder group to another: competition for control over the commons.

    Thus killing a community, society or civilization is rather simple: Social construction by creating a competing (divergent) frame.

    In doing so the separate factions of the society will consume each other in the competition for consumption and or control over their shared properties.

    Divide and let them conquer themselves for you


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-21 12:43:00 UTC