Short Version: The western Roman empire dramatically overextended but would have recovered, even from the invasions except for the folly of slaves(immigrants) and Christianity(Judaism / Marxism / Neo-Marxism / Feminism / Postmodernism), and finally the Islamic invasion and destruction of the civilized worlds. REASONS 1 – Overextension of Colonization: Celtic holocaust created the opportunity for north germanic migration, just as defeating Germany and Europe in WW2 left a vacuum for marxism Judaism and Islam today. And leaving African colonialization incomplete left opportunity for Islam. 2 – Overextension of Range – from the Mediterranean coastal army, with naval transport and strike capability – which is cheap – to a primarily territorial military among hostile less developed people that was expensive. In other words, the cost of domesticating (settling, urbanizing, spreading literacy, commerce, and law) Europe was too high for the returns. (just like today) 3 – Overextension of Agrarian Economy – the empire needed industrialization. The greeks failed to reform their economy. The Romans improved administration and organization – second to none 4 – Overextension of Technology – the empire given the technology at the time, which led to corruption, assassinations, and use of force to obtain rents, rather than profitable service of the state, to obtain status. (just like today) Bad Strategic Response to Overextension – Splitting the empire with the trade wealth in the greek east but the aristocracy in the roman west. Just like we have all these foreign costs in Europe and in the middle east just to protect Europe from oil price catastrophes – that don’t affect us. Overextension of Elites Necessary To Govern – empire so that the ratio of elites and middle class to conquered and slaves was too high to rule, just like we have too many non-whites to rule today, and the middle east to govern thru Israel and the monarchies today. Overextension of soldiery beyond supplying demographic – so that the military was no longer ‘citizens’ – but mercenaries – (Just like Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims in the military today who are there for a jobs program not patriotism and ‘the people’) Overextension of Immigration (Slaves): slaves were the old world’s version of third world immigrants today. These people lack the values traditions and culture and if brought in sufficient numbers will always rebel against the host population until they defeat them. Overextension of TOLERANCE: Christianity undermined values like Christianity v2 (postmodernism-feminism-multiculturalism-equalitarianism) undermined our values. They shifted focus from European zest for life and achievement, for ignorance of life and fantasy after death. Christianity without warfare to dominate it, makes men weak. So Christianity prevented the restoration of the roman empire. Overextension and Vulnerability to Plague: The soldiers brought back either measles or smallpox or the plague from the middle east and decimated the population. Fragility to Shocks: The Muslim conquests destroyed the economies of the developed world, profit from conquest was exhausted by 1100, and islam’s mandatory ignorance reduced the developed civilizations to ashes. Judaism to undermine. Christianity to weaken, Islam to destroy the cancer of the abaramic religions – the war on civilization, evolution, and life itself. The answer for Rome and for America (europe) is the same: ethno-nationalization of the organs of state and organs of the state, and finance, at all levels, and specialization in running the state – not just here but anywhere we can function as a military, administrative, judicial elite (without outbreeding). Gibbon gave a classic formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline as well as to attacks from outside the Empire. —“The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians. … (AND) … As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire… the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity… If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors.”— -Curt Doolittle
Source: Original Site Post
-
Full Answer of Why Rome Fell: Overextension of The Heroic Population
Short Version: The western Roman empire dramatically overextended but would have recovered, even from the invasions except for the folly of slaves(immigrants) and Christianity(Judaism / Marxism / Neo-Marxism / Feminism / Postmodernism), and finally the Islamic invasion and destruction of the civilized worlds. REASONS 1 – Overextension of Colonization: Celtic holocaust created the opportunity for north germanic migration, just as defeating Germany and Europe in WW2 left a vacuum for marxism Judaism and Islam today. And leaving African colonialization incomplete left opportunity for Islam. 2 – Overextension of Range – from the Mediterranean coastal army, with naval transport and strike capability – which is cheap – to a primarily territorial military among hostile less developed people that was expensive. In other words, the cost of domesticating (settling, urbanizing, spreading literacy, commerce, and law) Europe was too high for the returns. (just like today) 3 – Overextension of Agrarian Economy – the empire needed industrialization. The greeks failed to reform their economy. The Romans improved administration and organization – second to none 4 – Overextension of Technology – the empire given the technology at the time, which led to corruption, assassinations, and use of force to obtain rents, rather than profitable service of the state, to obtain status. (just like today) Bad Strategic Response to Overextension – Splitting the empire with the trade wealth in the greek east but the aristocracy in the roman west. Just like we have all these foreign costs in Europe and in the middle east just to protect Europe from oil price catastrophes – that don’t affect us. Overextension of Elites Necessary To Govern – empire so that the ratio of elites and middle class to conquered and slaves was too high to rule, just like we have too many non-whites to rule today, and the middle east to govern thru Israel and the monarchies today. Overextension of soldiery beyond supplying demographic – so that the military was no longer ‘citizens’ – but mercenaries – (Just like Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims in the military today who are there for a jobs program not patriotism and ‘the people’) Overextension of Immigration (Slaves): slaves were the old world’s version of third world immigrants today. These people lack the values traditions and culture and if brought in sufficient numbers will always rebel against the host population until they defeat them. Overextension of TOLERANCE: Christianity undermined values like Christianity v2 (postmodernism-feminism-multiculturalism-equalitarianism) undermined our values. They shifted focus from European zest for life and achievement, for ignorance of life and fantasy after death. Christianity without warfare to dominate it, makes men weak. So Christianity prevented the restoration of the roman empire. Overextension and Vulnerability to Plague: The soldiers brought back either measles or smallpox or the plague from the middle east and decimated the population. Fragility to Shocks: The Muslim conquests destroyed the economies of the developed world, profit from conquest was exhausted by 1100, and islam’s mandatory ignorance reduced the developed civilizations to ashes. Judaism to undermine. Christianity to weaken, Islam to destroy the cancer of the abaramic religions – the war on civilization, evolution, and life itself. The answer for Rome and for America (europe) is the same: ethno-nationalization of the organs of state and organs of the state, and finance, at all levels, and specialization in running the state – not just here but anywhere we can function as a military, administrative, judicial elite (without outbreeding). Gibbon gave a classic formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline as well as to attacks from outside the Empire. —“The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians. … (AND) … As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire… the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity… If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors.”— -Curt Doolittle
-
Proposed Roads to Freedom: Strategic Thinking
Proposed Roads to Freedom: Strategic Thinking https://t.co/Dvlh2VbSjK
-
Proposed Roads to Freedom: Strategic Thinking
by Giego Caleiro
Facebook is the second worst place to post about this, after Twitter but here’s the issue: A lot posting related to politics is reactive only. We see something in the news and publically react to it. Yet the battles in politics are being won by smart French guys in the 60s and smart German/Austriac guys in the 30s and 40s who engineered the language changes that we currently see, leading to thing like the current attempt to change the meaning of the word racist to include people who think there are differences between the average member of different races, while keeping the negative connotation of the old and still true meaning “mistreating or willing to mistreat others on a racial basis, in particular favoring one’s own race over some other” On the RightWing, I see basically Curt having a project that is proactive, Propertarianism, and which could, in theory, become part of the discourse and progressively get some power to the point of actually guiding the discussion in a non reactive way in the next few decades. I see Pat Ryan who does seem to have a more hidden but still strategic process with actual flowcharts, aims etc… who is at least trying to implement it. I see also Thiel who doesn’t really think we can change politics too much, but only one or another opportunistic change. Bannon seems to truly have a plan and is helping many countries do it. Most people on Facebook though are just reacting. Showing how silly the squad or some liberal or some corporatist or some SJW is. That strategy won’t win. And judging by the changes in language, the other team is currently winning. So what are some more proactive ways to plan ahead how to actually make the world be this or that way a couple decades from now? It’s easy to know what not to do. Don’t say femicide, perpetuate, opressed, systemic, equity. Don’t concede anything on language. But having a specific well determined view of the future. What philosophers call a kind, is often helpful in bringing people into it. Thiel jokes that there’s three visual kind specific futures: 1) Islam: and women wear burkas 2) Environmentalism: electric scooters and Greta 3) Totalitarian surveillance: China style And between those he picks Greta. Fair enough. But it would be ideal if there were 2 things missing from conversation 4) Some other alternative that is more evolutionarily sustainable but still increases our odds of eventually seizing the astronomical value of the cosmic commons. and *) A strategy to disburse to people to cause us to get there, just like the left of 50 years ago took over academia, menial administrative positions, education, hollywood, and now uses that to control the youth and shift the language slowly and steady, until the Bildeberg Circle, trilateral commision, Davos etc… win and they can all farm everyone else to death. For those of us who think that’s a bad outcome, we need a strategy of our own. And the ones we have are somewhat incomplete stories that don’t encompass technology (like Christianity) and this reactive stance. We’re falling for the bait. We react to “the worst of the left” but we don’t create “the best of the non-left in an evolutionarily sustainable way that can slowly take over in the next few decades” But the future lies ahead, and a plan is needed. If possible one that can be decomposed into small parts like the SJW borg. There’s a huge army of rightwing people who just react. It would be nice if there was a plan besides imitating Tucker Carlson and making sarcastic remarks when the far left goes crazy.
-
Proposed Roads to Freedom: Strategic Thinking
by Giego Caleiro
Facebook is the second worst place to post about this, after Twitter but here’s the issue: A lot posting related to politics is reactive only. We see something in the news and publically react to it. Yet the battles in politics are being won by smart French guys in the 60s and smart German/Austriac guys in the 30s and 40s who engineered the language changes that we currently see, leading to thing like the current attempt to change the meaning of the word racist to include people who think there are differences between the average member of different races, while keeping the negative connotation of the old and still true meaning “mistreating or willing to mistreat others on a racial basis, in particular favoring one’s own race over some other” On the RightWing, I see basically Curt having a project that is proactive, Propertarianism, and which could, in theory, become part of the discourse and progressively get some power to the point of actually guiding the discussion in a non reactive way in the next few decades. I see Pat Ryan who does seem to have a more hidden but still strategic process with actual flowcharts, aims etc… who is at least trying to implement it. I see also Thiel who doesn’t really think we can change politics too much, but only one or another opportunistic change. Bannon seems to truly have a plan and is helping many countries do it. Most people on Facebook though are just reacting. Showing how silly the squad or some liberal or some corporatist or some SJW is. That strategy won’t win. And judging by the changes in language, the other team is currently winning. So what are some more proactive ways to plan ahead how to actually make the world be this or that way a couple decades from now? It’s easy to know what not to do. Don’t say femicide, perpetuate, opressed, systemic, equity. Don’t concede anything on language. But having a specific well determined view of the future. What philosophers call a kind, is often helpful in bringing people into it. Thiel jokes that there’s three visual kind specific futures: 1) Islam: and women wear burkas 2) Environmentalism: electric scooters and Greta 3) Totalitarian surveillance: China style And between those he picks Greta. Fair enough. But it would be ideal if there were 2 things missing from conversation 4) Some other alternative that is more evolutionarily sustainable but still increases our odds of eventually seizing the astronomical value of the cosmic commons. and *) A strategy to disburse to people to cause us to get there, just like the left of 50 years ago took over academia, menial administrative positions, education, hollywood, and now uses that to control the youth and shift the language slowly and steady, until the Bildeberg Circle, trilateral commision, Davos etc… win and they can all farm everyone else to death. For those of us who think that’s a bad outcome, we need a strategy of our own. And the ones we have are somewhat incomplete stories that don’t encompass technology (like Christianity) and this reactive stance. We’re falling for the bait. We react to “the worst of the left” but we don’t create “the best of the non-left in an evolutionarily sustainable way that can slowly take over in the next few decades” But the future lies ahead, and a plan is needed. If possible one that can be decomposed into small parts like the SJW borg. There’s a huge army of rightwing people who just react. It would be nice if there was a plan besides imitating Tucker Carlson and making sarcastic remarks when the far left goes crazy.
-
DEFINITION: Productive
DEFINITION: Productive https://t.co/cy6M0WiV4N
-
DEFINITION: Productive
Hey Curt, can I get a disambiguation of the “productive” part of the 5 point definition of reciprocity? The word itself is intuitive, but I’m trying to break it down into further specifics that can be easily understood by the public.
Productive vs Parasitic Productive means Not parasitic, and no incentive to retaliate. A transfer or exchange where my demonstrated interests are greater afterward. For example, blackmail is not productive, it’s parasitic. And Corruption is parasitic, not productive. Even if they are true (‘fully informed”) an even if it is voluntary (“a choice”) neither blackmail or corruption are productive, and they encourage me to retaliate. If I say, give money to beggar, I feel good about it. I made someone else feel good. Neither wants to retaliate. If I give money to a bureaucrat or he won’t do his job in a timely fashion, I din’t gain anything, and I now can’t use that resource for the satisfaction of my wants – I don’t feel good and I resent him (want to retaliate).
-
DEFINITION: Productive
Hey Curt, can I get a disambiguation of the “productive” part of the 5 point definition of reciprocity? The word itself is intuitive, but I’m trying to break it down into further specifics that can be easily understood by the public.
Productive vs Parasitic Productive means Not parasitic, and no incentive to retaliate. A transfer or exchange where my demonstrated interests are greater afterward. For example, blackmail is not productive, it’s parasitic. And Corruption is parasitic, not productive. Even if they are true (‘fully informed”) an even if it is voluntary (“a choice”) neither blackmail or corruption are productive, and they encourage me to retaliate. If I say, give money to beggar, I feel good about it. I made someone else feel good. Neither wants to retaliate. If I give money to a bureaucrat or he won’t do his job in a timely fashion, I din’t gain anything, and I now can’t use that resource for the satisfaction of my wants – I don’t feel good and I resent him (want to retaliate).
-
Q&A: Position on Feminism and Patriarchy?
Q&A: Position on Feminism and Patriarchy? https://t.co/OmfV7L36ch
-
Q&A: Position on Feminism and Patriarchy?
(Note: Impulsive boys demand certainty – patient men understand human determinism)
—“Where does P stand on feminism and patriarchy”—
1) “FEMINISM” Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” EQUALITY IN THE LAW: The only equality is in our necessary equality before the law, in matters of dispute resolution. This is the only equality that does and must exist. OTHERWISE INEQUALITY “Males and females divide the reproductive, sensory, perceptive, cognitive, advocacy, and labor of a civilization by population and time, with females in the shorter term and between individuals, and males in the longer term between polities.” This division of labor is rather obvious because men generally allow women to control their female relative’s reproduction, and men’s reproduction is limited by the pool of available females in the polity, and the male polity’s ability to maintain a quality stock of females, who will happily defect to other men or polities (hypergamy) if it’s in their individual advantage, regardless of the cost to the polity (males). CONSEQUENCES We demonstrate inequality in our abilities, preference, and interests, and this inequality of ability, preference, and interests favors empathy, consumption, the interpersonal, and social among females, versus empiricism, capitalization, the economic, political, and military among males – and the more liberty we have to express those inequalities in our abilities, interests, and preferences the more we bias to pursue them. The evolutionary and competitive value of adversarial competition is demonstrably a majority male bias, reinforced by loyalty at the cost of adaptability to different groups.. The evolutionary and competitive value of consensus-seeking internally to any group is demonstrably a majority female bias – though lacking any loyalty, but grater individual adaptability to different groups. Men and women coddle women for evolutionary reasons. And Women drive down adversarial competition in all organizations so that they can tolerate participation. This is why women drive down the competitive advantage of innovative and capitalizing organizations, and drive up the uncompetitive costs of accommodation and consumption. This is why any industry women enter into and become a majority declines in innovation, income, and associated prestige. It’s why women are generally put in charge of organizations where the men can’t agree on a direction (holding place), are or in organizations in decline (provide cover), or are purely symbolic (appearances). And so few women (though they do exist) are at the top. In the military, in any non-administrative, non-medical role – women drive down adversarial competition, largely put men at risk in combat, in jobs better done by men, have more job opportunities elsewhere, and so consume resources and jobs for men without those opportunities, and are wasting prime reproductive value. (period). CONCLUSION Forced integration prevents market from doing its job of teaching us the truth. The market solves these problems just fine if we let the market solve them. Forced integration of the sexes has been as damaging as forced integration of the races. Equality under the law is the only necessary or desirable equality. 2) “PATRIARCHY” Patriarchy: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. Or, a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” My position is well documented, that there is value in a ‘house’ for any class with divergent interests, and that military, economic(biz, industry, capital), labor(salaried, hourly), and reproductive (female) houses force exchanges between the classes. So we identify the political problem of enfranchising both labor and women without providing them with separate houses, so that the classes can negotiate trades, rather than parties which race to the bottom. And that these differences are common sense and there is little evidence that constitutional monarchies hiring a professional cabinet, with voters limited to veto of appropriations, aren’t better than democracies – which as always, crash and burn. In our constitution, we lay out the options for government given the demographics and economy and the polity can choose.