Curt Doolittle

Form: Excerpt

  • 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.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post. AESTHETICS AND EUGENICS by Daniel Gurpide In 1920,

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 14:14:58 UTC

  • AESTHETICS AND EUGENICS by Daniel Gurpide In 1920, Knight Dunlap, President of t

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 10:14:00 UTC

  • The Saudi – Us – Iran Relationship

    Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force by Aaron Kahland —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain. The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining. In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists. This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans. To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland

  • The Saudi – Us – Iran Relationship

    Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force by Aaron Kahland —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain. The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining. In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists. This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans. To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Universal Suffrage Is Incompatible with Freedom

    by Steve Pender The founders accepted democracy only because they had set what they thought were sufficient restrictions to prevent past problems of democracy. Only white (the same stock as the founders), male (those who bear the cost of land ownership/defense), landowners (skin in the game, proven interest in long-term settlement, majority of taxpayers) could vote in the American “democracy”. Universal suffrage is provably incompatible with long-term freedom since varying levels of skin in the game create voting arbitrage opportunities for the free-riding side (vote for something that benefits you, at the expense of others who pay higher cost).

  • Universal Suffrage Is Incompatible with Freedom

    by Steve Pender The founders accepted democracy only because they had set what they thought were sufficient restrictions to prevent past problems of democracy. Only white (the same stock as the founders), male (those who bear the cost of land ownership/defense), landowners (skin in the game, proven interest in long-term settlement, majority of taxpayers) could vote in the American “democracy”. Universal suffrage is provably incompatible with long-term freedom since varying levels of skin in the game create voting arbitrage opportunities for the free-riding side (vote for something that benefits you, at the expense of others who pay higher cost).

  • by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthrop

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 15:28:00 UTC