Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Ordinary Flu Deaths Each Year Are Limited

    Feb 1, 2020, 11:35 AM (compiled) According to the World Health Organization (WHO), flu globally attacks 5%–10% adults and 20%–30% children annually. According to the CDC, during the year when the influenza A (H3N2) viruses are prominent, death rates are typically more than double as compared to seasons when the influenza A (H1N1) or influenza B viruses dominate. This is because the influenza A (H3N2) virus is far more potent and contagious than the H1N1 influenza virus. Hospitalizations and flu season deaths occur mainly among the high-risk groups such as young children below the age of 5 years, the elderly above the age of 65 years, and those with chronic medical illnesses. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), experts say the flu season is in full swing with an estimated 4.6 million flu illnesses, 39,000 hospitalizations and 2,100 deaths from flu so far this season. The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) spiked in the week ending on Dec 21, from 3.9% to 5.1% — a trend typically seen during winter holidays. Rates of ILI have been above the national baseline of 2.4% for 7 weeks. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and New York City reported high levels of ILI. Flu activity was described as widespread in 39 states. The CDC said hospitalization rates rose to 6.6 per 100,000 population, up from 5.5 per 100,000 population during the second week of December. The highest rate of hospitalization was among adults aged older than 65 (14.4 per 100,000 population), followed by children ages 0 to 4 (12.5 per 100,000 population) and adults ages 50 to 64 (7.0 per 100,000 population). All age groups have seen a significant increase in the last week. The CDC said hospitalization rates mirror previous seasons. Influenza A has been detected in 52.9% of hospitalized cases, and 46.4% were associated with influenza B. In testing at public health labs, influenza B accounts for 58.8% of positive flu samples collected from across the country, 98.7% of which are Victoria lineage. Influenza A was detected in 41.2% of specimens, with most of those (94.8%) subtyped as the H1N1 strain first seen in 2009. “Activity is being caused mostly by influenza B/Victoria viruses, which is unusual for this time of year. A(H1N1) viruses are the next most common and are increasing in proportion relative to other influenza viruses in some regions,” the CDC said. Three pediatric deaths were also recorded in the last week, raising the season’s total to 22. All three recent deaths were associated with influenza B viruses; only six deaths in total this season have been associated with influenza A. In the 2018-2019 flu season, the CDC confirmed 143 pediatric deaths. The CDC encouraged all who have not yet done so to receive a seasonal influenza vaccine, as the season is set to last for several more weeks. DEATHS DUE DO EPIDEMICS The world has seen five pandemics during the last century, which took a large number of lives. Here are the figures of deaths that occurred in the United States and Worldwide during those years.

    1. 1889 Russian Flu Pandemic – about 1 million flu deaths

    2. “Spanish flu” A of 1918-19 caused the highest number of influenza-related deaths: approximately 500,000 deaths occurred in the U.S. and 20 million worldwide. That figure is more than the total number of deaths caused by the World War one — 16 million. As a matter of fact, during that year, the flu had killed more people than any other illness in recorded history.

    3. “Asian flu” A of 1957-58 caused 70,000 deaths in the United States and about one million to two million deaths worldwide

    4. “Hong-Kong flu” A of 1968-69 resulted in 34,000 deaths in the United States and an estimated one million to three million people died worldwide.

    5. 2009 H1N1 Flu Pandemic – about 18,300 deaths in the United States and up to 203,000 deaths worldwide

  • Post “Joy Day”: A Rant Against Our British Kin’s Decline Into Continental Marxist Serfs

    Feb 1, 2020, 5:06 PM (doh!) (ouch!)

    —“How would P be applied to the current monarch of the UK and her father in not keeping their subjects safe? ei well everything that has happened to the British and or ethnic English man in the last 80years.”—Joseph Williams

    First, P-constitution improves the american written constitution into a formal logic of our ancestral natural law, which is an improvement on the unwritten British constitution. Second, This constitution is entirely applicable to the UK as well as the US (or Canada, or Australia, or NZ). The only hard sell is getting Americans back on the monarchy train – although they’re getting closer at the moment. Washington turned it down unfortunately so we built an anti monarchical public mythos thats false. otherwise we would have just duplicated the British system. Third, if the monarch abandoned his or her duties to protect the people there is only one solution to that problem and only one solution we want – and that is the militia. Third, you British folks really piss me off with what I consider pretty stupid questions on this Monarchy. Why? You take the power away from the monarchy and then ask why it doesn’t protect you? You took away its power to protect you! (a) The British were wrong to contain Germany in both wars, (a Germany that stated repeatedly that Europe needed the British empire to survive) and paid the price for it with the loss of pretty much everything – including the status of reserve currency which made financing the empire possible. The people, beaten, turned (whimpering like pussies) to socialism like the germans rather than ‘manning up’ and keeping the empire as have the French and as did the Russians. (b) The monarchy was in the position because of this ‘socialism’ of being eradicated so has held on for dear life to survive the postwar period. (c) the english constitution(unwritten) is unlike the american (written), and the parliament has the ability (unlike the american) to alter the constitution. The parliament removed the ability of the monarchy to function as a judge of last resort and placed too much power in parliament – ending the long history of rule of law by traditional anglo saxon, germanic, proto germanic, western indo european law. (d) It’s not the monarchy’s fault, it’s the people’s fault – for not having the man-balls to protect the monarchy, and being too stupidly susceptible to marxist and french and jewish bullsh-t (false promise of freedom from physical and natural law) and full of their own arrogance that a parliament of the people without the constraint of rule of law, supreme court, and monarchy, could resist the attempt of the french to colonize Britain and drag her down with the rest of Europe. (e) so man up, saddle up, rally up, and … 1) get your constitution in written form … 2) limit the parliament to the constitutional constraints … 3) get your monarchy back in place as judge of last resort able to veto legislation, and dismiss parliaments that ever again act against the intersets of the people – people easily sold false promises – and to preserve the sovereignty that they have inherited from thousands of years of better men, and the prohibition on alienating themselves, the parliament, and the monarchy from those rights as a hierarchy of sovereigns. Man up. Show up. Fight to make your people great again. Otherwise the few of us Anglos on this side of the pond will have to come over there and teach you what the fuck a man is again. 😉 We can reverse the catastrophe of the world wars and restore the benefits of the empire to our entire civilization, and all it’s defenses and values for all of us even if it’s only under the commonwealth. But we gotta man up like our ancestors to do it.

  • Post “Joy Day”: A Rant Against Our British Kin’s Decline Into Continental Marxist Serfs

    Feb 1, 2020, 5:06 PM (doh!) (ouch!)

    —“How would P be applied to the current monarch of the UK and her father in not keeping their subjects safe? ei well everything that has happened to the British and or ethnic English man in the last 80years.”—Joseph Williams

    First, P-constitution improves the american written constitution into a formal logic of our ancestral natural law, which is an improvement on the unwritten British constitution. Second, This constitution is entirely applicable to the UK as well as the US (or Canada, or Australia, or NZ). The only hard sell is getting Americans back on the monarchy train – although they’re getting closer at the moment. Washington turned it down unfortunately so we built an anti monarchical public mythos thats false. otherwise we would have just duplicated the British system. Third, if the monarch abandoned his or her duties to protect the people there is only one solution to that problem and only one solution we want – and that is the militia. Third, you British folks really piss me off with what I consider pretty stupid questions on this Monarchy. Why? You take the power away from the monarchy and then ask why it doesn’t protect you? You took away its power to protect you! (a) The British were wrong to contain Germany in both wars, (a Germany that stated repeatedly that Europe needed the British empire to survive) and paid the price for it with the loss of pretty much everything – including the status of reserve currency which made financing the empire possible. The people, beaten, turned (whimpering like pussies) to socialism like the germans rather than ‘manning up’ and keeping the empire as have the French and as did the Russians. (b) The monarchy was in the position because of this ‘socialism’ of being eradicated so has held on for dear life to survive the postwar period. (c) the english constitution(unwritten) is unlike the american (written), and the parliament has the ability (unlike the american) to alter the constitution. The parliament removed the ability of the monarchy to function as a judge of last resort and placed too much power in parliament – ending the long history of rule of law by traditional anglo saxon, germanic, proto germanic, western indo european law. (d) It’s not the monarchy’s fault, it’s the people’s fault – for not having the man-balls to protect the monarchy, and being too stupidly susceptible to marxist and french and jewish bullsh-t (false promise of freedom from physical and natural law) and full of their own arrogance that a parliament of the people without the constraint of rule of law, supreme court, and monarchy, could resist the attempt of the french to colonize Britain and drag her down with the rest of Europe. (e) so man up, saddle up, rally up, and … 1) get your constitution in written form … 2) limit the parliament to the constitutional constraints … 3) get your monarchy back in place as judge of last resort able to veto legislation, and dismiss parliaments that ever again act against the intersets of the people – people easily sold false promises – and to preserve the sovereignty that they have inherited from thousands of years of better men, and the prohibition on alienating themselves, the parliament, and the monarchy from those rights as a hierarchy of sovereigns. Man up. Show up. Fight to make your people great again. Otherwise the few of us Anglos on this side of the pond will have to come over there and teach you what the fuck a man is again. 😉 We can reverse the catastrophe of the world wars and restore the benefits of the empire to our entire civilization, and all it’s defenses and values for all of us even if it’s only under the commonwealth. But we gotta man up like our ancestors to do it.

  • Tri-Partism and The Tri-Functional Hypothesis of Our Natural Gods, and Our Natural Religion

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:02 PM (mandatory understanding on IE origins of Market Gods) (compare with the Monopoly of semitic underclass gods) The Trifunctional Hypothesis of prehistoric Proto-Indo-European society postulates a tripartite ideology (“idéologie tripartite”) reflected in the existence of three classes or castes—priests, warriors, and commoners (farmers or tradesmen)—corresponding to the three functions of the sacral, the martial and the economic, respectively. The trifunctional thesis is primarily associated with the French mythographer Georges Dumézil, who proposed it in 1929 in the book Flamen-Brahman, and later in Mitra-Varuna. According to Dumézil (1898–1986), Proto-Indo-European society comprised three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions:

    1. Sovereignty, which fell into two distinct and complementary sub-parts: … 1.1 one formal, juridical and priestly but worldly; … 1.2 the other powerful, unpredictable, and also priestly but rooted in the supernatural world. 2. Military, connected with force, the military and war. 3. Productivity, herding, farming and crafts; ruled by the other two. In the Proto-Indo-European mythology each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group. Many such divisions occur in the history of Indo-European societies: Southern Russia: Bernard Sergent associates the Indo-European language family with certain archaeological cultures in Southern Russia and reconstructs an Indo-European religion based upon the tripartite functions. Early Germanic society: The supposed division between the king, nobility and regular freemen in early Germanic society. Norse mythology: Odin (sovereignty), Týr (law and justice), the Vanir (fertility). Odin is assigned one of the core functions in the Indo-European pantheon as a representative of the first function (sovereignty) corresponding to the Hindu Varuṇa (fury and magic) as opposed to Týr, who corresponds to the Hindu Mitrá (law and justice); while the Vanir represent the third function (fertility). Odin has been also been interpreted as a death-god (“Psychopomp”: transporting us to the afterlife) and connected to cremations, and has also been associated with ecstatic practices. Classic Greece: The three divisions of the ideal society as described by Socrates in Plato’s The Republic. Bernard Sergent examined the trifunctional hypothesis in Greek epic, lyric and dramatic poetry. India: The three Hindu castes, the Brahmins or priests; the Kshatriya, the warriors and military; and the Vaishya, the agriculturalists, cattle rearers and traders. The Shudra, a fourth Indian caste, is a peasant or serf. A 2001 study found that the genetic affinity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans whereas lower castes are more like Asians. The researchers believe that the Indo-European speakers entered India from the Northwest, mixing with or displacing proto-Dravidian speakers, and may have established a caste system with themselves primarily in higher castes. TRIPLE (TRIPARTITE) DIETIES A triple deity (sometimes referred to as threefold, tripled, triplicate, tripartite, triune or triadic, or as a trinity) is three deities that are worshipped as one. Such deities are common throughout world mythology; the number three has a long history of mythical associations. Carl Jung considered the arrangement of deities into triplets an archetype in the history of religion. In classical religious iconography or mythological art, three separate beings may represent either a triad who always appear as a group (Greek Moirai, Charites, Erinyes; Norse Norns; or the Irish Morrígan) or a single deity known from literary sources as having three aspects (Greek Hecate, Roman Diana). THE INDO EUROPEAN ORIGINS OF TRIPARTISM, TRIFUNCTIONALISM, TRIPLE GODS, AND TERNARY LOGIC Georges Dumézil’s trifunctional hypothesis proposed that ancient Indo-European society conceived itself as structured around three activities: worship, war, and toil. In later times, when slave labor became common, the three functions came to be seen as separate “classes”, represented each by its own god. Dumézil understood this mythology as reflecting and validating social structures in its content: such a tripartite class system is found in ancient Indian, Iranian, Greek and Celtic texts. In 1970, Dumézil proposed that some goddesses represented these three qualities as different aspects or epithets and identified examples in his interpretation of various deities including the Iranian Anāhitā, the Vedic Sarasvatī and the Roman Juno. Vesna Petreska posits that myths including trinities of female mythical beings from Central and Eastern European cultures may be evidence for an Indo-European belief in trimutive female “spinners” of destiny. But according to the linguist M. L. West, various female deities and mythological figures in Europe show the influence of pre-Indo-European goddess-worship, and triple female fate divinities, typically “spinners” of destiny, are attested all over Europe and in Bronze Age Anatolia. POST BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE CULTURESAncient Celtic cultures The Matres or Matronae are usually represented as a group of three but sometimes with as many as 27 (3 × 3 × 3) inscriptions. They were associated with motherhood and fertility. Inscriptions to these deities have been found in Gaul, Spain, Italy, the Rhineland and Britain, as their worship was carried by Roman soldiery dating from the mid 1st century to the 3rd century AD.[24] Miranda Green observes that “triplism” reflects a way of “expressing the divine rather than presentation of specific god-types. Triads or triple beings are ubiquitous in the Welsh and Irish mythic imagery” (she gives examples including the Irish battle-furies, Macha, and Brigit). “The religious iconographic repertoire of Gaul and Britain during the Roman period includes a wide range of triple forms: the most common triadic depiction is that of the triple mother goddess” (she lists numerous examples).[25] In the case of the Irish Brigid it can be ambiguous whether she is a single goddess or three sisters, all named Brigid.[26] The Morrígan also appears sometimes as one being, and at other times as three sisters,[27][28][29][30] as do the three Irish goddesses of sovereignty, Ériu, Fódla and Banba.[31] Hinduism In Hinduism, the supreme divinity Para Brahman can take the form of the Trimurti, in which the cosmic functions of creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe are performed by the three deities of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer), who are at the same time three forms of the one Para Brahman.[32] The divine being Dattatreya is a representation of all three of these deities incarnated as a single being.[33] Christianity (the trinity) Christians profess “one God in three divine persons” (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). This is not to be understood as a belief in (or worship of) three Gods, nor as a belief that there are three subjectively-perceived “aspects” in one God, both of which the Catholic Church condemns as heresy. The Catholic Church also rejects the notions that God is “composed” of its three persons and that “God” is a genus containing the three persons. The Gnostic text Trimorphic Protennoia presents a threefold discourse of the three forms of Divine Thought: the Father, the Son, and the Mother (Sophia). Many Christian saints, especially martyrs, are trios who share a feast day or other remembrance. (See Category:Saints trios.) Whether they are subject to actual veneration and prayed to for supernatural aid, or simply honored, varies by Christian denomination. ESTATES OF THE REALM A 13th-century French representation of the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages – Oratores (“those who pray”), Bellatores (“those who fight”), and Laboratores (“those who work”). The estates of the realm, or three estates, were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christendom (Christian Europe) from the medieval period to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time. The best known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789–1799). Monarchy was for the king and the queen and this system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobles (the Second Estate), and peasants and bourgeoisie (the Third Estate). In some regions, notably Scandinavia and Russia, burghers (the urban merchant class) and rural commoners were split into separate estates, creating a four-estate system with rural commoners ranking the lowest as the Fourth Estate. Furthermore, the non-landowning poor could be left outside the estates, leaving them without political rights. In England, a two-estate system evolved that combined nobility and clergy into one lordly estate with “commons” as the second estate. This system produced the two houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In southern Germany, a three-estate system of nobility (princes and high clergy), knights, and burghers was used. In Scotland, the Three Estates were the Clergy (First Estate), Nobility (Second Estate), and Shire Commissioners, or “burghers” (Third Estate), representing the bourgeois, middle class, and lower class. The Estates made up a Scottish Parliament. TRIPARTISM (COOPERATIONISM, MARKETS) IN PROPERTARIANISM In P we begin with the three means of coercion: Force-Defense, Remuneration-Deprivation, and Inclusion-Undermining (ostracization) in a market preserved by the judiciary. We argue that the three classes developed three ‘market competitions’ for elites; martial-judicial, priestly-educational, and productive-labor and trade. These three sets of elites we recognize as Conservative-Capitalizing (force), Progressive-consuming(Undermining), and Libertarian-Productive (Trade). In P we restore the “cooperation between the compatible but unequal classes”: The Monarchy as judge of last resort, The Judiciary as preservation of sovereignty, the Senate (nobility) as territorial (tribal) interests, the Upper House as the Commercial Interests, and the Lower House as Family and Labor Interests. Under this interpretation, christianity is migrating to its natural place as the feminine (forgiveness, love), while we are restoring our traditional gods as we try to restore our civlization after the abrahamic dark ages of death and decline. LEARN MORE This info is collected from wikipedia, but read Dumezil or at least the spartk notes version. 😉 If you undestand Dumizel’s description of, Campbell’s Monomyth, and the nordic myths you can begin to reconstruct our natural religions in both northern second generation and southern european first generation forms.

  • Tri-Partism and The Tri-Functional Hypothesis of Our Natural Gods, and Our Natural Religion

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:02 PM (mandatory understanding on IE origins of Market Gods) (compare with the Monopoly of semitic underclass gods) The Trifunctional Hypothesis of prehistoric Proto-Indo-European society postulates a tripartite ideology (“idéologie tripartite”) reflected in the existence of three classes or castes—priests, warriors, and commoners (farmers or tradesmen)—corresponding to the three functions of the sacral, the martial and the economic, respectively. The trifunctional thesis is primarily associated with the French mythographer Georges Dumézil, who proposed it in 1929 in the book Flamen-Brahman, and later in Mitra-Varuna. According to Dumézil (1898–1986), Proto-Indo-European society comprised three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions:

    1. Sovereignty, which fell into two distinct and complementary sub-parts: … 1.1 one formal, juridical and priestly but worldly; … 1.2 the other powerful, unpredictable, and also priestly but rooted in the supernatural world. 2. Military, connected with force, the military and war. 3. Productivity, herding, farming and crafts; ruled by the other two. In the Proto-Indo-European mythology each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group. Many such divisions occur in the history of Indo-European societies: Southern Russia: Bernard Sergent associates the Indo-European language family with certain archaeological cultures in Southern Russia and reconstructs an Indo-European religion based upon the tripartite functions. Early Germanic society: The supposed division between the king, nobility and regular freemen in early Germanic society. Norse mythology: Odin (sovereignty), Týr (law and justice), the Vanir (fertility). Odin is assigned one of the core functions in the Indo-European pantheon as a representative of the first function (sovereignty) corresponding to the Hindu Varuṇa (fury and magic) as opposed to Týr, who corresponds to the Hindu Mitrá (law and justice); while the Vanir represent the third function (fertility). Odin has been also been interpreted as a death-god (“Psychopomp”: transporting us to the afterlife) and connected to cremations, and has also been associated with ecstatic practices. Classic Greece: The three divisions of the ideal society as described by Socrates in Plato’s The Republic. Bernard Sergent examined the trifunctional hypothesis in Greek epic, lyric and dramatic poetry. India: The three Hindu castes, the Brahmins or priests; the Kshatriya, the warriors and military; and the Vaishya, the agriculturalists, cattle rearers and traders. The Shudra, a fourth Indian caste, is a peasant or serf. A 2001 study found that the genetic affinity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans whereas lower castes are more like Asians. The researchers believe that the Indo-European speakers entered India from the Northwest, mixing with or displacing proto-Dravidian speakers, and may have established a caste system with themselves primarily in higher castes. TRIPLE (TRIPARTITE) DIETIES A triple deity (sometimes referred to as threefold, tripled, triplicate, tripartite, triune or triadic, or as a trinity) is three deities that are worshipped as one. Such deities are common throughout world mythology; the number three has a long history of mythical associations. Carl Jung considered the arrangement of deities into triplets an archetype in the history of religion. In classical religious iconography or mythological art, three separate beings may represent either a triad who always appear as a group (Greek Moirai, Charites, Erinyes; Norse Norns; or the Irish Morrígan) or a single deity known from literary sources as having three aspects (Greek Hecate, Roman Diana). THE INDO EUROPEAN ORIGINS OF TRIPARTISM, TRIFUNCTIONALISM, TRIPLE GODS, AND TERNARY LOGIC Georges Dumézil’s trifunctional hypothesis proposed that ancient Indo-European society conceived itself as structured around three activities: worship, war, and toil. In later times, when slave labor became common, the three functions came to be seen as separate “classes”, represented each by its own god. Dumézil understood this mythology as reflecting and validating social structures in its content: such a tripartite class system is found in ancient Indian, Iranian, Greek and Celtic texts. In 1970, Dumézil proposed that some goddesses represented these three qualities as different aspects or epithets and identified examples in his interpretation of various deities including the Iranian Anāhitā, the Vedic Sarasvatī and the Roman Juno. Vesna Petreska posits that myths including trinities of female mythical beings from Central and Eastern European cultures may be evidence for an Indo-European belief in trimutive female “spinners” of destiny. But according to the linguist M. L. West, various female deities and mythological figures in Europe show the influence of pre-Indo-European goddess-worship, and triple female fate divinities, typically “spinners” of destiny, are attested all over Europe and in Bronze Age Anatolia. POST BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE CULTURESAncient Celtic cultures The Matres or Matronae are usually represented as a group of three but sometimes with as many as 27 (3 × 3 × 3) inscriptions. They were associated with motherhood and fertility. Inscriptions to these deities have been found in Gaul, Spain, Italy, the Rhineland and Britain, as their worship was carried by Roman soldiery dating from the mid 1st century to the 3rd century AD.[24] Miranda Green observes that “triplism” reflects a way of “expressing the divine rather than presentation of specific god-types. Triads or triple beings are ubiquitous in the Welsh and Irish mythic imagery” (she gives examples including the Irish battle-furies, Macha, and Brigit). “The religious iconographic repertoire of Gaul and Britain during the Roman period includes a wide range of triple forms: the most common triadic depiction is that of the triple mother goddess” (she lists numerous examples).[25] In the case of the Irish Brigid it can be ambiguous whether she is a single goddess or three sisters, all named Brigid.[26] The Morrígan also appears sometimes as one being, and at other times as three sisters,[27][28][29][30] as do the three Irish goddesses of sovereignty, Ériu, Fódla and Banba.[31] Hinduism In Hinduism, the supreme divinity Para Brahman can take the form of the Trimurti, in which the cosmic functions of creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe are performed by the three deities of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer), who are at the same time three forms of the one Para Brahman.[32] The divine being Dattatreya is a representation of all three of these deities incarnated as a single being.[33] Christianity (the trinity) Christians profess “one God in three divine persons” (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). This is not to be understood as a belief in (or worship of) three Gods, nor as a belief that there are three subjectively-perceived “aspects” in one God, both of which the Catholic Church condemns as heresy. The Catholic Church also rejects the notions that God is “composed” of its three persons and that “God” is a genus containing the three persons. The Gnostic text Trimorphic Protennoia presents a threefold discourse of the three forms of Divine Thought: the Father, the Son, and the Mother (Sophia). Many Christian saints, especially martyrs, are trios who share a feast day or other remembrance. (See Category:Saints trios.) Whether they are subject to actual veneration and prayed to for supernatural aid, or simply honored, varies by Christian denomination. ESTATES OF THE REALM A 13th-century French representation of the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages – Oratores (“those who pray”), Bellatores (“those who fight”), and Laboratores (“those who work”). The estates of the realm, or three estates, were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christendom (Christian Europe) from the medieval period to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time. The best known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789–1799). Monarchy was for the king and the queen and this system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobles (the Second Estate), and peasants and bourgeoisie (the Third Estate). In some regions, notably Scandinavia and Russia, burghers (the urban merchant class) and rural commoners were split into separate estates, creating a four-estate system with rural commoners ranking the lowest as the Fourth Estate. Furthermore, the non-landowning poor could be left outside the estates, leaving them without political rights. In England, a two-estate system evolved that combined nobility and clergy into one lordly estate with “commons” as the second estate. This system produced the two houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In southern Germany, a three-estate system of nobility (princes and high clergy), knights, and burghers was used. In Scotland, the Three Estates were the Clergy (First Estate), Nobility (Second Estate), and Shire Commissioners, or “burghers” (Third Estate), representing the bourgeois, middle class, and lower class. The Estates made up a Scottish Parliament. TRIPARTISM (COOPERATIONISM, MARKETS) IN PROPERTARIANISM In P we begin with the three means of coercion: Force-Defense, Remuneration-Deprivation, and Inclusion-Undermining (ostracization) in a market preserved by the judiciary. We argue that the three classes developed three ‘market competitions’ for elites; martial-judicial, priestly-educational, and productive-labor and trade. These three sets of elites we recognize as Conservative-Capitalizing (force), Progressive-consuming(Undermining), and Libertarian-Productive (Trade). In P we restore the “cooperation between the compatible but unequal classes”: The Monarchy as judge of last resort, The Judiciary as preservation of sovereignty, the Senate (nobility) as territorial (tribal) interests, the Upper House as the Commercial Interests, and the Lower House as Family and Labor Interests. Under this interpretation, christianity is migrating to its natural place as the feminine (forgiveness, love), while we are restoring our traditional gods as we try to restore our civlization after the abrahamic dark ages of death and decline. LEARN MORE This info is collected from wikipedia, but read Dumezil or at least the spartk notes version. 😉 If you undestand Dumizel’s description of, Campbell’s Monomyth, and the nordic myths you can begin to reconstruct our natural religions in both northern second generation and southern european first generation forms.

  • The Anglo Peoples Need …

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:06 PM THE ANGLO PEOPLES NEED WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS OF INVIOLABLE NATURAL LAW REQUIRING TRANSACTIONAL CHANGES, AND THE PEOPLE NEED JURIDICAL DEFENSE AND THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS JURIDICAL ACCOUNTABILITY by Reece Haynes 5 years in British politics (observing, theorizing, debating, practicing), proves everything you’ve said. The supremacy of Parliament is for nought when that Parliament is filled with the wrong people. And our unwritten constitution, plus the common law, is routinely disobeyed – with no sanctions applied by the judiciary. Not codifying the constitution, not maintaining the Empire, and not preserving the Aristotelian mixed model (hereditary monarchy and nobility, plus limited democracy) were all big mistakes. And then there’s the historical geopolitical mistakes which you also mention.

    CD: The judicial novelties I’ve found are:

    1. The hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort in defense against the fashions of the people, the malice of a minority, and the failure of the political process, is indispensable.

    2. The commonwealth model is to be embraced by any future american political order, with the monarchy representing the english speaking peoples.

    3. The British parliamentary and debate model is superior to the american.

    4. The British two (or more) Tiered legal system is superior to the american.

    5. The German Proportional Party System is superior to the British and american — allowing superior policy and superior adaptation.

    6. The requirement for strict construction from the first principle of reciprocity, specific statement of the scope(limit), and reference of any prior legislation , legislation, or finding of the court, upon which it depends.

    7. the requirement that the judiciary return the undecidable to the legislature thereby preventing legislation from the bench – and the mechanism for judiciary to require the legislature settle the matter in reasonable time

    8. The liability of legislators, regulators, and judges to warranty (hold involuntary liability) for their actions in so much that they do not violate the constitution of natural law.

    9. The vulnerability of legislators, regulators, judges and their agents to judicial prosecution for violations of the constitution.

    10. The vulnerability of the public to prosecution for advocation in public to the public in matters public, of violation of the constitution.

    11. The addition of involuntary warranty and therefor liability, for the entire scope of baiting into hazard upon which the 20th century deceits were constructed.

    12. The reversal of borrower beware to lender beware.

    13. Universal standing in matters of the commons

    14. Restoration of every man (citizen) a sheriff (deputy), defense of self, property and commons, restoration of extrajudicial punishment; the judicially sanctioned duel; and the sovereignty of men and as such their requirement to bear arms.

    15. The jewish-french cosmopolitan sponsored invasion of western civlization has destroyed our experiment in democracy – and universal democracy must and will end and we have proposed a set of options for polities to choose from, the easiest of which is multiple houses to maintain numbers, or fewer voters by much higher criteria, or lastly, kinship(ethnic) voters only.
      Edit

  • The Anglo Peoples Need …

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:06 PM THE ANGLO PEOPLES NEED WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS OF INVIOLABLE NATURAL LAW REQUIRING TRANSACTIONAL CHANGES, AND THE PEOPLE NEED JURIDICAL DEFENSE AND THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS JURIDICAL ACCOUNTABILITY by Reece Haynes 5 years in British politics (observing, theorizing, debating, practicing), proves everything you’ve said. The supremacy of Parliament is for nought when that Parliament is filled with the wrong people. And our unwritten constitution, plus the common law, is routinely disobeyed – with no sanctions applied by the judiciary. Not codifying the constitution, not maintaining the Empire, and not preserving the Aristotelian mixed model (hereditary monarchy and nobility, plus limited democracy) were all big mistakes. And then there’s the historical geopolitical mistakes which you also mention.

    CD: The judicial novelties I’ve found are:

    1. The hereditary monarchy as a judge of last resort in defense against the fashions of the people, the malice of a minority, and the failure of the political process, is indispensable.

    2. The commonwealth model is to be embraced by any future american political order, with the monarchy representing the english speaking peoples.

    3. The British parliamentary and debate model is superior to the american.

    4. The British two (or more) Tiered legal system is superior to the american.

    5. The German Proportional Party System is superior to the British and american — allowing superior policy and superior adaptation.

    6. The requirement for strict construction from the first principle of reciprocity, specific statement of the scope(limit), and reference of any prior legislation , legislation, or finding of the court, upon which it depends.

    7. the requirement that the judiciary return the undecidable to the legislature thereby preventing legislation from the bench – and the mechanism for judiciary to require the legislature settle the matter in reasonable time

    8. The liability of legislators, regulators, and judges to warranty (hold involuntary liability) for their actions in so much that they do not violate the constitution of natural law.

    9. The vulnerability of legislators, regulators, judges and their agents to judicial prosecution for violations of the constitution.

    10. The vulnerability of the public to prosecution for advocation in public to the public in matters public, of violation of the constitution.

    11. The addition of involuntary warranty and therefor liability, for the entire scope of baiting into hazard upon which the 20th century deceits were constructed.

    12. The reversal of borrower beware to lender beware.

    13. Universal standing in matters of the commons

    14. Restoration of every man (citizen) a sheriff (deputy), defense of self, property and commons, restoration of extrajudicial punishment; the judicially sanctioned duel; and the sovereignty of men and as such their requirement to bear arms.

    15. The jewish-french cosmopolitan sponsored invasion of western civlization has destroyed our experiment in democracy – and universal democracy must and will end and we have proposed a set of options for polities to choose from, the easiest of which is multiple houses to maintain numbers, or fewer voters by much higher criteria, or lastly, kinship(ethnic) voters only.
      Edit

  • The time has come once again to set limits.

    Feb 2, 2020, 9:14 AM (re-post from ban) Imitate Jesus. There wasn’t much better advice. I’ve harped on it here for a while, but this requires re-telling. Jesus imitation offers the best strategy for those that lack agency. And in his time; that was damn near every soul. The low/no-agency Jesus strategy works in low-trust and high-trust systems/situations. But, please understand at the time of emergence it was ONLY patriarchal systems of order in which to navigate. The foundation for an agency-less ethic to disperse to an underclass was sorely lacking. When there is proper order, acceptance and maintenance of that order is needed. With the Jesus trick one is sure not to run afoul of those with more power (specifically in ways that could get you picked out of the herd and culled). This allows one to stick around long enough to develop agency of their own. But, in a landscape of chaos (currently caused by over-order and over-abundance of information lacking coherence and salience) the Jesus trick only allows for further entropy. In times where order needs to be created the creator’s son falls short of the mark [his trick doesn’t multiply/no breeding]: By: James Thomson (d. 1882)

    “This poor sexless Jew, with a noble feminine heart, and a magnificent though uncultivated and crazy brain, did no work to earn his bread; evaded all social and political responsibilities, took no wife and contemned his own family; lived [as] a vagabond, fed and housed by charity (if by miracle, it is clear that we cannot imitate him: would that we could!); uttered many beautiful and even sublime moral truths and more impracticable precepts; preached continually himself, and faith in himself alone as the one thing necessary; and died with the lamentable cry of womanish desperation, perhaps the most significant confession in history of a life of supreme self-illusion laid bare to itself at the point of death. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He founded a sect which holds him up as the Great Exemplar of mankind, and scarcely one member of which even tries to tread in his footsteps. I have much love and reverence for him as a man; but am quite certain that if everyone really set about following his example, the world (which is surely mad enough already) would soon be one vast Bedlam broken loose.”

    Jesus provides an imitation model for the ideal under-class citizen {That is ANY dependent: men/women that lack agency, disabled, children, etc.} but, doesn’t set up an iterative, imitable, image for those needing to create order. See, in order creation, what IS isn’t enough. If it were, we wouldn’t be driven to produce. In a situation that needs order more of those able to unfurl order in the cosmic space are necessary one must be able to produce. We ought not have incentives that favor consumers but producers. It is irresponsible to imitate Jesus as you ought to do more than sacrifice yourself to the greater “good”{as right now it’s the greater BAD} of humanity. As humanity isn’t what it was; and to sacrifice yourself to it (for their sins) isn’t heroic anymore but moronic; they’re undeserving and spoiled {NOT oppressed}. They know EXACTLY what they do; and if they don’t it’s a failure on their behalf to correct for the error {you have the internet and the worlds information at your finger-tips; ignoramus}[if you’d like to place the blame on the system, fine, but you best not be a part of it]. We are now at a point in time where we ought to be saying do as Jesus said; not as he did [calculate like Jesus]. And we ought to be picking out specific instances to pull from: We need the Jesus that flipped over tables and scolded the higher-ups of the day; we need the Jesus that proclaimed “go forth and multiple,” we need the Jesus that spat out the lukewarm, we need the Jesus that warns us of God coming back with that flaming sword of Truth to do some swift re-ordering… the tolerance isn’t (for)bearable any longer! It’s irresponsible to act in this naive manner: forbearing for those that will surely act irreciprocal when given the chance. Irreciprocity IS immoral and to roll out the red carpet for its manifestation is suicide. To extend tolerance to those that will use tolerance against you to undermine and usurp your position is not kind, it isn’t Jesus like; it’s immoral, an insane display of ineptness and it’s no better if it’s innate {your instinct to allow others to walk all over you; agreeable; feminine}. The time has come once again to set limits. And as man is the measure of all things; it is he that ought to set those limits. And those limits ought to lead to the form and function of a flourishing culture. One that preserves its landscape of Jesus-like emergence as opposed to dismantling that very landscape in His name.’  

  • The time has come once again to set limits.

    Feb 2, 2020, 9:14 AM (re-post from ban) Imitate Jesus. There wasn’t much better advice. I’ve harped on it here for a while, but this requires re-telling. Jesus imitation offers the best strategy for those that lack agency. And in his time; that was damn near every soul. The low/no-agency Jesus strategy works in low-trust and high-trust systems/situations. But, please understand at the time of emergence it was ONLY patriarchal systems of order in which to navigate. The foundation for an agency-less ethic to disperse to an underclass was sorely lacking. When there is proper order, acceptance and maintenance of that order is needed. With the Jesus trick one is sure not to run afoul of those with more power (specifically in ways that could get you picked out of the herd and culled). This allows one to stick around long enough to develop agency of their own. But, in a landscape of chaos (currently caused by over-order and over-abundance of information lacking coherence and salience) the Jesus trick only allows for further entropy. In times where order needs to be created the creator’s son falls short of the mark [his trick doesn’t multiply/no breeding]: By: James Thomson (d. 1882)

    “This poor sexless Jew, with a noble feminine heart, and a magnificent though uncultivated and crazy brain, did no work to earn his bread; evaded all social and political responsibilities, took no wife and contemned his own family; lived [as] a vagabond, fed and housed by charity (if by miracle, it is clear that we cannot imitate him: would that we could!); uttered many beautiful and even sublime moral truths and more impracticable precepts; preached continually himself, and faith in himself alone as the one thing necessary; and died with the lamentable cry of womanish desperation, perhaps the most significant confession in history of a life of supreme self-illusion laid bare to itself at the point of death. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? He founded a sect which holds him up as the Great Exemplar of mankind, and scarcely one member of which even tries to tread in his footsteps. I have much love and reverence for him as a man; but am quite certain that if everyone really set about following his example, the world (which is surely mad enough already) would soon be one vast Bedlam broken loose.”

    Jesus provides an imitation model for the ideal under-class citizen {That is ANY dependent: men/women that lack agency, disabled, children, etc.} but, doesn’t set up an iterative, imitable, image for those needing to create order. See, in order creation, what IS isn’t enough. If it were, we wouldn’t be driven to produce. In a situation that needs order more of those able to unfurl order in the cosmic space are necessary one must be able to produce. We ought not have incentives that favor consumers but producers. It is irresponsible to imitate Jesus as you ought to do more than sacrifice yourself to the greater “good”{as right now it’s the greater BAD} of humanity. As humanity isn’t what it was; and to sacrifice yourself to it (for their sins) isn’t heroic anymore but moronic; they’re undeserving and spoiled {NOT oppressed}. They know EXACTLY what they do; and if they don’t it’s a failure on their behalf to correct for the error {you have the internet and the worlds information at your finger-tips; ignoramus}[if you’d like to place the blame on the system, fine, but you best not be a part of it]. We are now at a point in time where we ought to be saying do as Jesus said; not as he did [calculate like Jesus]. And we ought to be picking out specific instances to pull from: We need the Jesus that flipped over tables and scolded the higher-ups of the day; we need the Jesus that proclaimed “go forth and multiple,” we need the Jesus that spat out the lukewarm, we need the Jesus that warns us of God coming back with that flaming sword of Truth to do some swift re-ordering… the tolerance isn’t (for)bearable any longer! It’s irresponsible to act in this naive manner: forbearing for those that will surely act irreciprocal when given the chance. Irreciprocity IS immoral and to roll out the red carpet for its manifestation is suicide. To extend tolerance to those that will use tolerance against you to undermine and usurp your position is not kind, it isn’t Jesus like; it’s immoral, an insane display of ineptness and it’s no better if it’s innate {your instinct to allow others to walk all over you; agreeable; feminine}. The time has come once again to set limits. And as man is the measure of all things; it is he that ought to set those limits. And those limits ought to lead to the form and function of a flourishing culture. One that preserves its landscape of Jesus-like emergence as opposed to dismantling that very landscape in His name.’  

  • Yes, Race Is Not the Problem to Solve – It Is the Asset to Manage.

    Feb 2, 2020, 10:24 AM (important) it is very unlikely that race can be overcome for anyone who must live in proximity to blacks and hispanics and sees the consequences. It is true that good people are in every group, and that our tribes (races) can work together to common ends if we do not force one another into continuing the demonstrated failure of integration – particularly in business, schools, and neighborhoods – and let people continue to naturally sort into communities. We have common commercial interests. We have common defense interests. But we do not have common social (normative) interests because of the harsh reality of our substantial differences in genetics, temperament, ability, culture, and history. Instead, while differences in demand for commons is the cause of our conflict – race is not the cause of our conflict but the political order in which races and mixed peoples cooperate. The current organization of the polity by winner takes all, and the possibility of obtaining political power to interfere in one another’s communities that is the problem. So, yes, the problem can be overcome. But it can only be overcome by grasping where we have common and uncommon interests. You cannot change sexual, social, economic, political, and military differences between the races and subraces, nor can you change the kinship advantage to association, residency, economic and political cooperation with people of those intersets. Our military and our markets don’t care about our color. every other aspect of life does. Hence my solution depriving us of possibility of power over one another – and the ability to determine our futures independent of what others think, by sorting into groups that are heterogeneous or homogenous. I want desperately to live in a northern european homogenous polity – and I want others of my people to do inherit that which I have inherited. I know what will happen to every other known political order and I am happy if they want to do so – that does not mean it is good or will end up as anything other than a small number of wealthy elites surrounded by urban rings of poverty, favellas and ghettos. It won’t. But these are our choices to make. They are not others’ choices to make.