Source: Original Site Post

  • CURT: IS DUGGIN RIGHT ABOUT RELIGOUS AWAKENINGS? (NO) There are no religious ‘aw

    CURT: IS DUGGIN RIGHT ABOUT RELIGOUS AWAKENINGS? (NO)

    There are no religious ‘awakenings’ only ‘reformations’ Communism is reformation of judaism, pomo-pc-woke-feminism is a reformation of chrsitianity. Islamism is a reformation of islam using communist strategy and tactics. Buddhism is a reformation of hinduism, and only the Japanese maintained the only ‘true’ and natural religion (ancestor worship).

    Duggin is hard to judge, beause he is vastly more sophisticated in his use of theology, philosophy, and science as means of rhetorical ideation – but I doubt he’s right. Religiosity declines faster and faster with every decade. So what’s occurring is we’re all seeking demand for another religious reformation.

    The entirety of chrsitianity failed to reform in response to darwin. We’ve had no Augustine 400s or Acquinas 1200s in the 1800’s and so the church was replaced by the academy, and the academy converted to marxism-neo-marxism-feminism-pomo-woke.

    In retrospect we can see that the catholics almost got it right, but that the church as a FORMAL institution was unable to reform beause of its economic and careerist incdentives, just as our current government and academy cannot reform becaus of their careerist incentives.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:24:08 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134782587215714

  • @sakovkt There are no religious ‘awakenings’ only ‘reformations’ Communism is a

    @sakovkt There are no religious ‘awakenings’ only ‘reformations’ Communism is a reformation of Judaism, pomo-pc-woke-feminism is a reformation of Christianity. Islamism is a reformation of Islam using communist strategy and tactics. Buddhism is a reformation of Hinduism, and only the Japanese maintained the only ‘true’ and natural religion (ancestor worship).

    Duggin is hard to judge, because he is vastly more sophisticated in his use of theology, philosophy, and science as means of rhetorical ideation – but I doubt he’s right. Religiosity declines faster and faster with every decade. So what’s occurring is we’re all seeking demand for another religious reformation.

    The entirety of Christianity failed to reform in response to darwin. We’ve had no Augustine 400s or Aquinas 1200s in the 1800’s and so the church was replaced by the academy, and the academy converted to marxism-neo-marxism-feminism-pomo-woke.

    In retrospect, we can see that the Catholics almost got it right, but that the church as a FORMAL institution was unable to reform because of its economic and careerist incentives, just as our current government and academy cannot reform because of their careerist incentives.

    The combination of the english invesntino of the modern state, the european natural law in scientific terms and christian love as a via positiva requirement is simply identical to the science of of human cooperation, economics, and evolution.

    But it seems we either get sophomoric humanism, or supernatural christianity, and we can’t compete the european project of the unification of Athens for the masculine and Jerusalem for the feminine.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:23:37 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134780555256794

  • @RadioFreeNorthwest (Correct as usual)

    @RadioFreeNorthwest (Correct as usual)


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 16:13:25 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134740397086234

  • @RadioFreeNorthwest, (all of of our folk) Our People overthink these things. The

    @RadioFreeNorthwest, (all of of our folk)

    Our People overthink these things. The FBI is looking for people who are showing signs of mental instability and signaling individual or group potential for violence. They’ve asked me to be careful what I say, precisely because of the number of mentally unstable young men out there in the current generations, who are easily influenced.

    They are biased against the right because we are constraining state power, in an era where (beginning with Clinton and Obama) the state became aware that the probability of civil war because of heterogeneity would rapidly increase, especially after the 1992 tipping point (which most of you won’t remember was ‘a thing’.)

    The right is an existential threat to the state actors, as well as the financial sector, and the globalist financial sector, and the globalist movement that is just a reformation of communist authoritarianism, which was just a secular pseudoscientific reformation of the authoritarian monotheistic supernatural religions. So don’t posture with macho and bravado about violence or crime, but frame all your actions as political, not violent or criminal.

    If you review the leaked information on federal communications monitoring, almost all of it is an attempt to discover Islamic terrorists transferring money, organizing, or planning some actions. I don’t have knowledge of post-jan6th changes, and the information they’re extracting from FB/Google etc hasn’t leaked enough that we know what’s happening there versus through the telcos (I have knowledge of those technologies and techniques).

    The inequality of protection under the law between left and right was pretty obvious in the licensing of Globalist-Soros-Antifa-BLM terrorism, and the prosecution of the right’s opposition to their terrorism. The treatment of jan6th as some conspiracy theory rather than a protest that as one percent of the severity of any of the left protests during the sixties is demonstrated evidence of the government’s intention to eradicate the right, rule of law, the constitution, Christianity, the American experiment in a majority middle class meritocracy, and the whole of anglo, germanic, and broader European civilization.

    We have a political case. But we also have both separatist, secessionist, and repetitions of the founder’s common-law suit against the state that created the USA as options., Its only once those are exhausted we must resort to force. Because it is only once we have exhausted those options that we hold the moral high ground. Why? Because we are fighting over the right to self-determination. And the only reciprocity (morality) possible is the reciprocal exchange of that right to self-determination by self-determined means.

    And that requires we produce separate territories, polities, and governments.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:55:30 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134669968834615

  • The Direction of Dating, Marriage, Mating Over this Century

    THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.

  • The Direction of Dating, Marriage, Mating Over this Century

    THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THIS CENTURY I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction. This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living. In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons. Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.

  • THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THE CENTURY I’m trying to predict

    THE DIRECTION OF DATING, MARRIAGE, MATING OVER THE CENTURY

    I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value.

    In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male.

    Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so.

    We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction.

    This means that we have destroyed the incentive for reproduction EXEPT for the UNDERCLASSES leading to expansion of dysgenia, crime, social conflict, political conflict, economic, technological, and scientific competitiveness necessary for preservation of statndards of living.

    In my work i’m trying to discover the policy and legal changes necessary to restore the market for reproduction, as well as production, and commons.

    Because without reproduction, we don’t have production and commons.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:30:48 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134572883970826

  • @Willow99 Not sure I understand what you’re intending to convey. I’m trying to p

    @Willow99 Not sure I understand what you’re intending to convey. I’m trying to predict the direction of marriage over the next century, especially as we pass through the coming shocks. And we’re increasingly returning to historical norms of serial relationships at the bottom and long-term relations at the top, mediated by predictable trait differences, and sexual phenotypical market value. In other words, just as we lifted many lower classes into middle-class consumption during the industrial revolution and postwar income bubble, we’re seeing a return to type as the economic capacity of middle, lower middle, working, laboring, and underclass males are no longer able to produce competitive advantage sufficiently to afford long term exclusive access to a female – and females can afford to NOT pay for the cost of maintaining a male. Marriage is an economic institution, and the insurance of marriage is a public good that prevents male-male violence, and females with children that must be supported through redistribution, because of the moral hazard of not doing so. We have un-insured marriage. And we have undermined the economy sufficiently such that women can survive in lower-income occupations for the first time – at least while they’re young – and men cannot produce sufficient income to generate demand for supply of resources in exchange for regular access to sex and reproduction.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:27:08 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134558417783568

  • @dev DEVELOPERS: Is there some way to invoke the message you’re currently compos

    @dev DEVELOPERS: Is there some way to invoke the message you’re currently compos

    @dev DEVELOPERS: Is there some way to invoke the message you’re currently composing once it’s ‘disappeared’ from the screen? (Which it shouldn’t do, since it’s user data loss (destruction).)

    The error message does NOT provide the third option which is ‘continue editing‘ the current message you’re composing.

    How do we access the message we’re currently composing?


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 15:11:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134498863726457

  • THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE (The end of the luxury good of

    THE RESTORATION OF MARRIAGE AS A BUSINESS VENTURE
    (The end of the luxury good of romantic marriage.)

    Romantic Love as we understand it was INVENTED and not that long ago. Marriage is a business proposition. If it isn’t it’s pointless to produce a corporation (which is what marriage consists of) instead of simply engaging in a market exchange until the opportunity’s exhausted.

    And that’s what relationships consist of: opportunities for reciprocal exchange, by the only condition in life where you can exchange putting another’s interests ahead of yours, because they are polar opposites.
    Exhaust opportunity, resource, or charge.

    It’s just physics. Sorry.

    This is a little closer to the voice I’m developing now that we’ve ended the century of romantic love. I think that’s the direction I want to work on, because that’s where I sense we are headed. The romantic dream American dream enlightenment dream all end together. Yep.


    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-20 14:28:44 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107134328822050828