Some Words on White Nationalism http://www.moreright.net/some-words-on-white-nationalism/
Apparently you have forgotten the reconquest of Spain. Violence, not escape.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-27 13:52:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/681110520812990465
( just had to drop a note that I love your profile photo. Kin. 🙂 -hugs man. )
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-27 03:28:00 UTC
The latter, of course.
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-25 14:51:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/680400603026190336
Reply addressees: @LBayonets
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/679766167834132480
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/679766167834132480
—“Q: I came to be aware [of] Julian Jaynes’ thesis materials. Seems to jive with your theme, Curt. You alluding to a similar theme when referencing the Pentateuch, or the Bible?”—Mark Palmer
[G]reat question Mark. Great Question. Well, I don’t really agree with how Jaynes is stating it, but I agree that the ‘separateness’ of the mind, and it’s self criticism, is a fairly recent invention in human history. You can see it if you talk to native americans and unexposed south american indians. Their distinction between the dream world and the rational (self critical) world is not bifurcated. It took me a while to understand this. They’re also far less verbally capable. So I suspect that the evolution of language and the evolution of the mind from from intuition are produced by the same evolutionary consequences. I mean women are definitely unable to control the noise in their heads as well as men are – this is the difference in our operating methods. I’d have a nervous breakdown if I had to be a woman for a day. Well, I’m trying to make the statement that the both the hebrew and the christian-greek-roman bible were constructed by means very similar to the construction of the constitution. But why is there such a difference between the content of archaic religion and the content modern of law? Or between the regulation of the roman empire, and the regulation of women, slaves, and the masses of mediterranean poor? The difference is PROPERTY. The asset of poor people is charity and cooperation. The asset of propertied people is property. Religion for regulation of norms (opportunity and insurance) and law for regulation of property (physical things). So what does that mean for our future? I think I have that figured out. But I want to eliminate the artificial distinction between Law(aristocracy), Philosophy(middle class) and Religion(poor). These technologies all serve the same purpose: regulation of classes. Curt
—“Q: I came to be aware [of] Julian Jaynes’ thesis materials. Seems to jive with your theme, Curt. You alluding to a similar theme when referencing the Pentateuch, or the Bible?”—Mark Palmer
[G]reat question Mark. Great Question. Well, I don’t really agree with how Jaynes is stating it, but I agree that the ‘separateness’ of the mind, and it’s self criticism, is a fairly recent invention in human history. You can see it if you talk to native americans and unexposed south american indians. Their distinction between the dream world and the rational (self critical) world is not bifurcated. It took me a while to understand this. They’re also far less verbally capable. So I suspect that the evolution of language and the evolution of the mind from from intuition are produced by the same evolutionary consequences. I mean women are definitely unable to control the noise in their heads as well as men are – this is the difference in our operating methods. I’d have a nervous breakdown if I had to be a woman for a day. Well, I’m trying to make the statement that the both the hebrew and the christian-greek-roman bible were constructed by means very similar to the construction of the constitution. But why is there such a difference between the content of archaic religion and the content modern of law? Or between the regulation of the roman empire, and the regulation of women, slaves, and the masses of mediterranean poor? The difference is PROPERTY. The asset of poor people is charity and cooperation. The asset of propertied people is property. Religion for regulation of norms (opportunity and insurance) and law for regulation of property (physical things). So what does that mean for our future? I think I have that figured out. But I want to eliminate the artificial distinction between Law(aristocracy), Philosophy(middle class) and Religion(poor). These technologies all serve the same purpose: regulation of classes. Curt
—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—
[C]hris, (all) Great Question Chris. We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests. The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it. Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government. And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me. Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all. The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience. These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say). I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution. Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there. But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science. (As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. ) I hope this helps. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev,
—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—
[C]hris, (all) Great Question Chris. We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests. The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it. Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government. And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me. Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all. The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience. These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say). I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution. Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there. But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science. (As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. ) I hope this helps. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev,
I thought that you in particular would appreciate this!
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 16:20:00 UTC
Q&A: “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ALT RIGHT AUTHORS?”
—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—
Chris, (all)
Great Question Chris.
We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests.
The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it.
Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government.
And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me.
Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all.
The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience.
These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say).
I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution.
Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there.
But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science.
(As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpeting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-ooperational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. )
I hope this helps.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 05:07:00 UTC
Q&A: SEPARATENESS OF THE MIND?
—“Q: I came to be aware [of] Julian Jaynes’ thesis materials. Seems to jive with your theme, Curt. You alluding to a similar theme when referencing the Pentateuch, or the Bible?”—Mark Palmer
Great question Mark. Great Question.
Well, I don’t really agree with how Jaynes is stating it, but I agree that the ‘separateness’ of the mind, and it’s self criticism, is a fairly recent invention in human history. You can see it if you talk to native americans and unexposed south american indians. Their distinction between the dream world and the rational (self critical) world is not bifurcated. It took me a while to understand this. They’re also far less verbally capable. So I suspect that the evolution of language and the evolution of the mind from from intuition are produced by the same evolutionary consequences.
I mean women are definitely unable to control the noise in their heads as well as men are – this is the difference in our operating methods. I’d have a nervous breakdown if I had to be a woman for a day.
Well, I’m trying to make the statement that the both the hebrew and the christian-greek-roman bible were constructed by means very similar to the construction of the constitution.
But why is there such a difference between the content of archaic religion and the content modern of law? Or between the regulation of the roman empire, and the regulation of women, slaves, and the masses of medeterranean poor?
The difference is PROPERTY. The asset of poor people is charity and cooperation. The asset of propertied people is property.
Religion for regulation of norms (opportunity and insurance) and law for regulation of property (physical things).
So what does that mean for our future? I think I have that figured out. But I want to eliminate the artificial distinction between Law(aristocracy), Philosophy(middle class) and Religion(poor).
These technologies all serve the same purpose: regulation of classes.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 04:07:00 UTC