Form: Reply

http://nyti.ms/24dG5fn(SOMEONE ASKED ME TO REPLY TO THIS ARTICLE)

NICHOLAS

1) Groupishness and Clannishness are empirically existent, universally demonstrable, human behaviors. These should be taught in academia because teaching universalism is a lie. In other words, the academy lies.

2) We teach marxism, socialism, almost all philosophies, comparative religion. So why not teach ‘hindu science’ or whatever? Well, because those people use those arguments to resist competing groups and clans. We teach all sorts of lies – in particular that democracy is a ‘good’.

3) Most of our history in every culture is constructed largely of lies, and one of the greatest innovations of the past generation has been the use of genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and brain science to demonstrate that these things are lies. But the purpose of those lies is to preserve groupishness against competitors. So a great deal of historical revisionism is necessary. The current narrative that man was oppressed by aristocracies rather than domesticated, and that upward redistribution of reproduction was a good, has been suppressed. So has the fact that the west’s advantage is largely the result of 3500 years of eugenic reproduction, with aggressive hanging from 1100 forward.

4) Religious scholarship is certainly useful, but religions argument is not. However, the purpose of religious argument is to rally the classes to resist invaders. And in a time where the west is being invaded by peoples with higher densities in lower class distributions, this is a rational tactic to take under democracy. All ideologies are false. That’s why they ‘work’ to inspire. Religion is just an pre-democratic ideology from when classes needed to be rallied against the state. It’s still effective. General intellectual consensus is that the USA resisted the secular state more effectively than europe because (a) we had neither aristocracy nor church to dispossess land from, (b) we are more religious and religion is the most successful means of resisting a state and establishing the limits under which a state may govern. (c) we did not have the european civil wars (ww1/2) or the prior (30 Years War), – just the opposite: we had the american civil war in which we lost trust for the state. So we have the opposite experience from Europe.

***So the universalist left lies to advance its impossible and undesirable utopia in advance of academy, media, and state, and the particularist right can’t tell the truth as to why they created the extant utopia we call the west: eugenics – the upward redistribution of reproduction to the middle class rendering all europeans descendants of the middle class.***

So why should the academy lie so fervently in support of it’s ideology that it creates a reactionary resistance to its lies? The only problem has been that the conservative strategy (persistence of family, tribe, nation, and eugenic hierarchy) is not sellable under democracy.

Furthermore, what separates today’s “Academy and Diploma” from Luther’s “Church and Indulgence”? Nothing really. We can tell from the data that all universities do is sort. Nothing is taught that is of value in the economy. I’s just boot camp for white collar workers – it answers the question: do you have the endurance? That’s all.

Furthermore, what separates the sale of indulgences to fund St Peters and the sale of diplomas to fund university infrastructure, administration, and savings? Nothing at all.

In fact, the intergenerational economic damage done by the academy system since 1963 has been the greatest redistribution of wealth since the military industrial complex.

The university media and state have nothing but universalist commercial incentives which they profess are moral ideals. When in fact they are demonstrably immoral in that they are self interested, against the interests of the body politic, and by reversal of eugenic reproduction, destructive to mankind.

The net is that we either practice eugenics and end up with the northern european model, or we end up with the castes of India, and south america, or in the worst possible case – by extensive down-breeding – we end up with the muslim world, and the pervasive ignorance of the muslim world. Why? Because the people at the bottom are worse for a polity than the people at the top are good. It is not that great civilizations have such great leaders. It is that one can only be a great leader in an advanced economy if one is not overly burdened by dependent and disutilitarian underclasses.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

Like · Reply · Just now