Source: Twitter X

  • We can all be trained to deal with circumstances. At least most of us can. Unfor

    We can all be trained to deal with circumstances. At least most of us can. Unfortunately we didn’t train women to enter the workforce with the skills necessary to preserve internal competition without social conflict.

    I keep repeating: most of our problems that are not IQโ€ฆ


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 23:47:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777483519859519858

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777482915976462388

  • ANONYMOUS BOOK LIST FROM 2011 (Found it interesting then and now) The internet h

    ANONYMOUS BOOK LIST FROM 2011
    (Found it interesting then and now)
    The internet has had a serious anti-intellectual effect on the conservatives history of thought even though its innovations in technique, pessimism, and intersexual relations and race have been fruitful.

    Reading List: (Books):
    Larry Arnhart: Darwinian Conservatism
    Aristotle: Politics, Nicomachean Ethics
    The Bible (King James, Vulgate)
    M.E. Bradford: Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution
    Peter Brimelow: Alien Nation
    Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France
    Patrick J. Buchanan: The Great Betrayal, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America; and Death of the West
    John C. Calhoun: The Conservative Mind, and the Papers of John C. Calhoun)
    Cicero: The Republic
    Cochran & Harpending: The 10,000 Year Explosion
    Samuel Taylor Coleridge: On the Constitution of Church & State
    T.S. Eliot: “Notes Towards a Definition of Culture”
    Steven Farron: The Affirmative Action Hoax
    Thomas Fleming: The Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering an Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition; The Politics of Human Nature; Immigration and American Identity
    Ian Fletcher: Free Trade Doesn’t Work
    Sam Francis: Revolution from the Middle; Shots Fired; America Extinguished; Essential Writings on Race
    Paul Gottfried: After Liberalism; Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt; Strange Death of Marxism; Encounters; Conservatism in America
    James Kalb: The Tyranny of Liberalism
    Russell Kirk: The Conservative Mind, Roots of American Order
    Donald W. Livingston: Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium
    Thomas DiLorenzo: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
    Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve; IQ and the Wealth of Nations
    Joseph de Maistre: Considerations on France
    Michael O’Meara: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe
    Friedrich Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morality; Beyond Good and Evil
    Robert Nisbet: The Quest for Community
    Joseph Pearce: Small Is Still Beautiful
    Josef Pieper: Leisure: The Basis of Culture; Tradition: Concept and Claim
    Claude Polin: La Cite Denaturee
    John Randolph: (See notes for Ch. V, The Conservative Mind)
    Jean Raspail: Camp of the Saints
    Willhelm Roepke: A Humane Economy
    Byron M. Roth: The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature
    J. Philippe Rushton: Race, Evolution and Behavior
    James C. Russell: The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity
    Claes G. Ryn: America the Virtuous
    Frank Salter: Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity; On Genetic Interests
    Joseph Scotchie: Revolt from the Heartland
    Roger Scruton: Conservative Texts
    Oswald Spengler:Decline of the West
    Paul Streitz: America First
    Tomislav Sunic: Against Democracy and Equality
    Twelve Southerners: I’ll Take My Stand
    Srdja Trifkovic: The Sword and the Prophet
    Robert Weissberg: Bad Students, Not Bad Schools
    Chilton Williamson, Jr.: The Conservative Bookshelf; Immigration and the American Future (editor); The Immigration Mystique
    Clyde N. Wilson: From Union to Empire

    Reading List: (Articles):
    Lawrence Auster: “The Politically Incorrect Truth About Rape in the United States”
    M.E. Bradford: “A Fire Bell in the Night: The Southern Conservative View,” “The Heresy of Equality,” “The Lincoln Legacy,” “On Rembering Who We Are,” “Rhetoric and Respectability,” “Dividing The House: The Gnosticism of Lincoln’s Political Rhetoric”
    Peter Brimelow: “Time to Rethink Immigration?,” “The Economic Impact of Immigration”
    Patrick J. Buchanan: “Nation or Notion?”; “Fruits of NAFTA”; “Dismantling America”
    John Derbyshire: “Why the Government Should and Can Not Make Us Equal”; “What’s So Scary about Evolution?”
    Marcus Epstein: “Myths of Martin Luther King”
    Thomas Fleming: “Counting People and People Who Count”
    Sam Francis: “The Germanization of Christianity,” “Race and the American Prospect,” Statement of Principles, “The Origins of ‘Racism’,” “The Return of the Repressed,” VDare Archives
    David Glasner: “Science and the Idea of Progress”
    Paul Gottfried: “Oswald Spengler and the Inspiration of the Classical Age”; “Strauss and the Straussians”; “Conservatives, NeoConservatives…What Next?”
    Samuel Huntington, “Migration Flows: The Central Issue of our Time”
    Thomas Howard: “The ‘Moral Mythology’ of C.S. Lewis”
    James Kalb: “Toward an Anti-Inclusivist Right [I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX]”; “Anti-Racism”
    George Kennan: “U.S. Overpopulation Deprives Planet of Helpful Civilization”
    Russell Kirk: “The Necessity of Dogmas in Schooling”
    E. Christian Kopff: “The Classics and the Traditional Liberal Arts Curriculum,” “A Return to Sources,” “Julius Evola on Tradition and the Right,” “History and Science in Tenney Frank’s Scholarship” (Original Frank article: “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire”) ; “The Fear of God”
    Kevin Lamb: “The Open-Borders Network”; “Whitewash”
    Wayne Lutton: โ€œThe Southern Poverty Law Center – A Special Reportโ€
    John O. McGinnis: “A Defense of Darwinian Conservatism”
    Ilana Mercer: “War on white South Africa”
    George A. Panichas: “T.S. Eliot and the Critique of Liberalism”
    Aurthur Pendleton: “Lew Rockwell and the Strange Death of Paleolibertarianism”
    Tom Piatak: “America First, Of Course”; “Bringing Back the Old Economy”
    J Enoch Powell: “Rivers of Blood”
    Jean Raspail: “The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic”; “On Camp of the Saints”
    Scott Richert: “Are Conversions to Islam Likely to Increase? “
    Michael Rienzi: “Ethno-States, Kin Preservation, and the End of Politics”
    Paul Craig Roberts: “The Missing Case for Free Trade,” “An Economist Rethinks Free Trade,” “The Decline and Fall of the American Economy”
    Edwin S. Rubenstein: “Legal Immigration – The Bigger Problem”; “The Economic Case for [an Immigration] Moratorium”
    Philippe Rushton: “Indians Aren’t That Intelligent,” Ethnic Nationalism, Evolutionary Psychology, and Genetic Similarity Theory,” “Shared Genes: The Evolution of Ethnonationalism”
    Claeas G. Ryn: “Universality or Uniformity? [or why Allan Bloom is left-wing],” “Political Philosophy and the Unwitten Constitution,” “How Conservatives Failed ‘The Culture’,” “Where in the World are We Going,” “Jacobin in Chief”; “Strauss and History”; “Universality and History”
    Steve Sailer: “The Reality of Race”; “Race is an Extremely Extended Family”;”Race and Its Proper Perspective” (NY Times Article); “Fragmented Future”; “Ethnic Nepotism and the Reality of Race”; “Question for feminists”; “The Left Doesn’t Like Darwin”; “On Dawkins on Race”; “How White Are Hispanics?”; “James Watson & Francis Crick on Race & IQ”
    Frank Salter: “Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?”; “Misunderstandings of Kin Selection….”; “The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders”
    Rob Sanchez: “Pledge of Allegiance — to India”; “Pledge of Allegiance — to India, Pt. II”
    Richard Spencer: “Is Christianity Western?”; “Darwinism is Right-Wing”
    Tim Stephanini: “Indian H-1B Workers Incompetent Cheats and Frauds”
    John Tanton: “The Durable Rev. Malthus”
    Taki Theodoracopulos: “Bush Pardons Carly Simon’s Little Drug Pusher”
    Srdja Trifkovic: “The North Worth Saving”
    Derek Turner: “Dark Continent”
    Eric Voegelin “On Classical Studies”
    Clyde Wilson: “The Jeffersonian Conservative Tradition,” “The Lincoln Fable”
    Jerry Woodruff: “The Use and Abuse of Friedrich Nietzsche,” “Samuel Francis on Immigration and the Ruling Class””


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 23:40:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777481566886723584

  • Well there is zero chance you or anyone else will have the capacity to do so. So

    Well there is zero chance you or anyone else will have the capacity to do so. Sorry. ๐Ÿ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:56:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777470591924134033

    Reply addressees: @HeiligeHare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777468622178553906

  • “…the alt right is a male grievance movement masquerading as a racial one”–@s

    “…the alt right is a male grievance movement masquerading as a racial one”–@spaceangelvoice

    That’s is partly true, Kate. The reactionary right is a counter revolution against the conversion of the caretaking of christian progressivism consistent with the west, into the sedition of jewish marxist anti-male, anti-family, anti-western, feminism as an evolution of the sequence of class marxism, cultural marxism, race marxism — all of which had little public traction into the one group who could be easily captured by the false promise of end of responsibility for self regulation, defense of the commons, the primacy of the family over the individual, and the necessity of capitalization over consumption.

    You are sensitive to the female content which is accelerating now that the dating, mating, marriage, and intersexual compromise traditions have broken down, as well as family formation, reproduction, education – all of which has been possible by the ideological capture of women – the only reason any of the leftist policies of the civil rights era to present have been possible.

    So it’s a grievance movement, because the feminist movement became a grievance movement, just as the entire sequence became a grievance movement, and did not follow the pre-war christian progressive movement that sought only inclusion into our civilization rather than destruction of it from within.

    So should it not be a grievance movement? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Women, in the main, bias to minimize responsibility for the common and maximize hyper-consumption whether it’s of emotional and behavioral self regulation, attention seeking, consumption, or hypergamy. Men’s strategy is the opposite, which is to accumulate capital and responsibility for commons such that they signal resources that women can consume by sex, affection, care, and loyalty. With the ability of women to obtain clerical work because of the computer revolution combined with the male inability to obtain income because of offshoring, combined with social media and dating sites, and legalized proto-sex and sex work it’s been in women’s favor of hyper-consumption and minimum responsibility. … at the cost of our reproduction and our collapse as a civilization, causing a collapse of our ability to continue benefit redistribution that now consumes the majority of the budget.

    Those of us who have studied this phenomena see it as obvious, but that requires a great deal of knowledge of both he original sources, and how they spread to the academy, media, and entertainment, and then into education and politics and the degeneration of the norms that assist the sexes in the compromise necessary for family formation, persistence, and generational production.

    Affections
    Thanks for all your insights
    -Curt

    Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:55:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777470412042956800

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777392699038917076

  • RL… That’s how I feel in the magnificence of your presence… Love you man. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    RL… That’s how I feel in the magnificence of your presence…

    Love you man. ๐Ÿ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:39:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777466399700455582

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777412020335231327

  • Primitives are what they are. The question is, once the country completes it’s c

    Primitives are what they are. The question is, once the country completes it’s conversion to modernity (which is a slow but increasingly successful process) how the religion and the people adapt – or like islam are they prisoners of their IQ and ignorance problem.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:32:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777464511215079854

    Reply addressees: @HeiligeHare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777463316719571103

  • I’M NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN I’m anti-abrahamism (lying), not anti christian (Jesus).

    I’M NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN
    I’m anti-abrahamism (lying), not anti christian (Jesus).
    If you want fundamentalism, you need to learn to lie to justify it. Learning the very simple lesson Jesus teaches takes not rationalization, justification, mysticism, supernaturalism, fiction, fraud, or lying.
    Jesus solve the problem of the prisoner’s dilemma of cooperation by demanding the counter intuitive: seduction non aggression and by forgiveness into cooperation for mutual benefit: the extension of kinship love to all.
    This made it possible for the primitive people of the middle east and the lower classes in the west, to find status, self image, self respect, and mindfulness without the wealth, power, ability of the upper classes of aristocratic warriors.
    The Jeffersonian bible is sufficient, and doesn’t require lying to your self, others, or social construction of falsehoods.
    It may be that some percentage of the people require the supernatural to sedate their neuroticism enough to obtain mindfulness. However the vast majority will not reject Christianity or natural law or Western philosophy, or Western science once they understand that Jesus’ solution was the only possible answer to achieving cooperation between the underclasses at the scale and under the technology of Greco Roman Civilization and the rate of change it imposed on the civilizations that had been static for three thousand years.

    Affections all.
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:30:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777464140862230528

  • “Q: What is the purpose of our civilization? Is it an end in itself or merely a

    –“Q: What is the purpose of our civilization? Is it an end in itself or merely a means to something greater?”–

    Great Question. Great topic for a long article, but the short version:
    (a) Surviving Competition (from lesser peoples)
    (b) Self Determination by Self Determined Means – together.
    (c) “The Proto-Indo-Europeans and their gods were heroic, militaristic, expansionist, and sky-worshipping, and – not peaceful, earth-worshipping, and agrarian.” And aristocratic egalitarianism (“make the people better so there are more of us”) It’s heroic.
    (d) Innovative, adaptive, Evolutionary Velocity.
    (e) Condition of prosperity while doing so.
    (f) Aryanism: Transcendence into, and defeat of, the gods we imagine (which are specious).

    The answer to your question: The purpose of our civilization is our Transcendence into gods by use of our dominance over ourselves, others, nature, and the universe

    Reply addressees: @ProphetOfHelios


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:22:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777461945509007360

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777444784094822538

  • RT @AutistocratMS: @FernandoGLV1212 @curtdoolittle Democritus – atomistic physic

    RT @AutistocratMS: @FernandoGLV1212 @curtdoolittle Democritus – atomistic physics
    Aristotle – social and political science
    Machiavelli – diโ€ฆ


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:11:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777459186940444872

  • I’m not disagreeing but my understanding is purely structural (comparative relig

    I’m not disagreeing but my understanding is purely structural (comparative religion as an institution). So if you’d explain why it’s disgusting I’d like to understand?


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:05:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777457757936890295

    Reply addressees: @HeiligeHare

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777455239869931814