Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • IT’S NOT JUST THE 19TH – HERE IS HOW THEY DESTROYED OUR CIVILIZATION BY DESTROYI

    IT’S NOT JUST THE 19TH – HERE IS HOW THEY DESTROYED OUR CIVILIZATION BY DESTROYING OUR UNIQUENESS: MERITOCRATIC, HIGH TRUST NORMS, LAWS, AND INSTITUTIONS.

    THIS IS HOW IT WAS DONE:

    They:

    1) increased the voting pool, then

    2) used immigration, to sink the pool, then

    3) used the sunk voting pool to stack the court (left), then

    4) funding selected cases before the courts to overthrow the constitution by legislation from the bench – what could not be achieved by pursuading the population to vote.

    5) Added women to the work force, then consumed all female generated taxes for redistribution, and forcibly redistributed middle class reproduction to the lower classes, underclasses, and third world immigrants.

    6) Using forced integration (immigration act), and then forced relocation (johnson,clinton,obama), and then unregulated immigration to undermine the high trust norms developed over centuries.

    7) This is before we address the financialization of the economy and the extraction of retirement and reproduction from the middle classes, or both spending down accumulated intergenerational capital, and borrowing against future production within the same (Boomer) generation.

    VOTING

    1 – *white single women are the only defectors from any group*

    2 – *if women had never had the vote, we never would have had a liberal president*

    3 – *women originally defended against marxism (male labor), but were converted by postmodernism (female labor)*

    4 – *white single women are the primary customers of the Postmodern Academy (pseudosciences and literature), Market Economy via Hyper Consumption of signals (70% of consumer spending), and Virtue Signaling (political) marketplaces.

    WHY IT MATTERS

    Without white women exclusively defecting, none of the cultural divisiveness would have occurred, and the end of western civilization as the only high trust policy outside of east asia – and the only civil society to survive.

    THE LEFT’S SCRIPT

    They followed the soviet script for moving low trust russians into baltic, eastern european and european high trust populations in order to undermine the high trust norms of europeans such that they would be obedient as Russians who had only been free of serfdom (slavery) for a generation, had no middle class, no middle class norms, and no traditions necessary for the voluntary organization of innovation, investment, production distribution and trade, thereby generating DEMAND FOR STATE CONTROL of every aspect of society.

    UNDERMINING THE AMENDMENTS

    The 14th (Federal Dominion over States)

    The 15th (Race color condition – eliminating segregation)

    The 17th (Senators by popular vote – eliminating state government power)

    The 19th (By Sex – eliminating the male-female compromise of the meritocracy of one family one vote )

    The 24th (By Poll Tax – eliminating even the lowest contribution and and property requirements)

    The 26th (By 18 yrs – eliminating all life experience requirements.)

    UNDERSTANDING THIS LIST OF ‘LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH IN MATTERS OF NORMS’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_landmark_court…

    AND IN PARTICULAR

    Brown v. Board of Education (1954) “Separate is not equal”

    Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

    Engel v. Vitale (1962) Holding: School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.

    Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Holding: Colleges and universities have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

    New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Holding: In order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice.

    Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Holding: Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.

    UNIQUENESS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION:

    Who, on this earth, other than property owning western males, has the agency to preserve nomocracy (rule of law)? What evidence do we have that ANYONE ELSE has the agency to produce or preserve rule of law?

    NO ONE.

    AGENCY IS A SCARCITY AND ONLY WESTERN MAN PRODUCED IT. BECAUSE ONLY WESTERN MAN WAS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE MERIT AND SPEAK THE TRUTH REGARDLESS OF THE COST TO THE DOMINANCE HIERARCHY.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 16:48:00 UTC

  • Just… just BARELY getting over the hump with understanding the relationship be

    Just… just BARELY getting over the hump with understanding the relationship between the people and the orthodox church vs the people and the catholic church, vs the protestant religion and each-other. So you know, when someone is religious in Orthodoxy (Ukraine, Belarus, Russia at least) it means something very different to them than it does to us in the west. So I don’t have the same ‘objection’ to their support as I do western use of the church as means of argument. in that sense western religious folk are more fundamentalist and eastern more traditionalist.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 16:05:00 UTC

  • IT ALL BEGINS WITH THE MILITIA: THE DISTRIBUTED DICTATORSHIP OF SOVEREIGN MEN It

    IT ALL BEGINS WITH THE MILITIA: THE DISTRIBUTED DICTATORSHIP OF SOVEREIGN MEN

    It all begins with the militia. We restore the militia, we have western civilization. We end the militia we end western civilization. The militia constitutes the shareholders (owners) of the territory, capital, and institutions. Every man a sovereign, soldier, sheriff, juror and judge.

    |ARISTOCRACY| Sovereignty > Reciprocity > Truth > Duty > Rule of Law > Markets In Everything: Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production, Commons, Polity, and War.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 15:15:00 UTC

  • MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION Religi

    MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION

    Religion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder.

    I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.)

    I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it.

    And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness).

    Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means.

    So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness.

    Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context.

    And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does.

    So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues.

    Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods.

    There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules.

    No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism.

    No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means.

    We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means.

    Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy.

    Affections.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 06:54:00 UTC

  • “Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers?”

    October 21st, 2018 2:26 PM

    —“I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this history you speak of is in actuality histories (plural) of (particular – not universal) men (with a lower M). Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers? If he does, how can his existence be known or proven? I apologize if I wasn’t clear before. I am positing an anti-humanist critique of universal-Man.”— Josef Kalinin

    [W]ell, like any complex phenomenon, we can create a set of descriptions (general rules of arbitrary precision) at every scale (resolution) from MAN down to civilization …. and all the way down to the individual. And we can select some subset of causal narratives to illustrate the general rule we observe. As long as the relations are constant from top to bottom we have not engaged in error, bias, or deceit. Man exists since we know what is not man. Man is anything he is not. Whether we slice(organize) the loaf(category) of mankind one way or another only serves to limit the complexity of relations to a small enough set of causes that they are open to our perception, cognition, and recall. Man became ‘man’ in the enlightenment when the similarities of humans around the world became evident. One could (I have) argued we are different species, and that man, like ape is merely a taxonomic category divided by geography, morphology, and behavior but maintaining (some) reproductive capacity. (That is my approach). Because it is how we treat all OTHER animals. Man possesses an extremely dense neural system which is terribly expensive. He can move and model space like no other creature. He can forecast changes in state, and make tools. He can cooperate (or not). He can make language. He can negotiate. He can make narratives. And he can possess more or less agency. And strangely enough he can create other systems of calculation besides ordinary language. This is a terribly unique set of properties – and we have literally killed off most of (not all) of our competing species (previous generations of man) and probably would have had we not evolved our knowledge so quickly under agrarianism. So I don’t know what anti-humanist means. And I don’t know what else to tell you. But homo-sapiens-sapiens exists. Whether you want to classify man as we do say, Pan, into different chimps vs bonobos, or pretend man is NOT like chimps, where whites and east asians are bonobos (further evolved) is a function of ends you want to accomplish. From my part we are different species and it’s obvious, and man is a category of life forms among the great apes. And the races and subraces of man are species. And I see nothing to argue against that other than to lie for political reasons.

  • An Anglo, Female, Evolution of Nietzsche: Paglia

    October 22nd, 2018 1:46 PM AN ANGLO, FEMALE, EVOLUTION OF NIETZSCHE: PAGLIA 1) READ IT. I assume most people on the right from libertarian to fascist know of Paglia’s advocacy for western civilization and her feminist’s anti-feminism (her case against over-reach really). But this is a VERY SERIOUS book for the RIGHT. So READ IT. (if I can get a digital copy I will add it to our FREE LIBRARY.) 2) PAGANISM – Paglia does an excellent job of illustrating how europeans have preserved paganism (Heathenism) and how it has survived despite the authoritarianism of monopoly monotheism (Semitism). 3) NIETZSCHE – Paglia makes the case in ‘not-so-silly-german-prose’ of anglo historical analysis, why Nietzche’s analysis (Restoration of our Natural Religion, Values, and Education) is so necessary – and an antidote to the second wave of semitic invasion we call Marxism/Postmodernism/Feminism. (Added to our reading list.) https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Personae-Decadence-Nefertiti-Dickinson-ebook/dp/B00B4NLWWM/

  • “Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers?”

    October 21st, 2018 2:26 PM

    —“I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this history you speak of is in actuality histories (plural) of (particular – not universal) men (with a lower M). Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers? If he does, how can his existence be known or proven? I apologize if I wasn’t clear before. I am positing an anti-humanist critique of universal-Man.”— Josef Kalinin

    [W]ell, like any complex phenomenon, we can create a set of descriptions (general rules of arbitrary precision) at every scale (resolution) from MAN down to civilization …. and all the way down to the individual. And we can select some subset of causal narratives to illustrate the general rule we observe. As long as the relations are constant from top to bottom we have not engaged in error, bias, or deceit. Man exists since we know what is not man. Man is anything he is not. Whether we slice(organize) the loaf(category) of mankind one way or another only serves to limit the complexity of relations to a small enough set of causes that they are open to our perception, cognition, and recall. Man became ‘man’ in the enlightenment when the similarities of humans around the world became evident. One could (I have) argued we are different species, and that man, like ape is merely a taxonomic category divided by geography, morphology, and behavior but maintaining (some) reproductive capacity. (That is my approach). Because it is how we treat all OTHER animals. Man possesses an extremely dense neural system which is terribly expensive. He can move and model space like no other creature. He can forecast changes in state, and make tools. He can cooperate (or not). He can make language. He can negotiate. He can make narratives. And he can possess more or less agency. And strangely enough he can create other systems of calculation besides ordinary language. This is a terribly unique set of properties – and we have literally killed off most of (not all) of our competing species (previous generations of man) and probably would have had we not evolved our knowledge so quickly under agrarianism. So I don’t know what anti-humanist means. And I don’t know what else to tell you. But homo-sapiens-sapiens exists. Whether you want to classify man as we do say, Pan, into different chimps vs bonobos, or pretend man is NOT like chimps, where whites and east asians are bonobos (further evolved) is a function of ends you want to accomplish. From my part we are different species and it’s obvious, and man is a category of life forms among the great apes. And the races and subraces of man are species. And I see nothing to argue against that other than to lie for political reasons.

  • “WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS?” by Zachary Miller (profile link pls?) My g

    “WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS?”

    by Zachary Miller (profile link pls?)

    My grandparents’ generation grew up in neighborhoods surrounded by their extended family. Nobody locked their doors – they didn’t have to. This was because all the mothers, aunts and grandmas carefully watched the kids run around outside while they passed along to each other the traditional feminine arts such as cooking and clothes-making. Meanwhile, the men worked hard, manly jobs. Community life was rich and filled with wholesome tradition. This is when America was great.

    SO WHAT HAPPENED? Beginning in earnest after World War 2, the proponents of consumerism broke up the extended family in at least four major ways:

    1. Shipping jobs overseas forced young men to leave their neighborhood in search of employment.

    2. Paying poor protestants to move into working class Catholic neighborhoods caused the Catholics to disperse into the suburbs.

    3. Agitating for doubling the workforce caused wages to halve, making it almost impossible to raise children on a single income.

    4. The consumerist strip mall commons supplanted the old town center market commons.

    AND WHY? Breaking up the extended family into atomized individuals was perpetuated to further the interests of consumerism. You see, an extended family neighborhood relies upon each other for products and services. On the other hand, atomized individuals will purchase those products and services from the consumer commons.

    It’s that simple.

    (via Brandon Hayes )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 17:18:00 UTC

  • “Tolerance is just a societal virtue signal that we are rich enough to afford a

    —“Tolerance is just a societal virtue signal that we are rich enough to afford a multicultural and diverse array of waste and still survive.”—@[11804727:2048:Steve Pender]

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 19:44:00 UTC

  • Olavo De Carvalho

    October 21st, 2018 12:00 AM (ht: @[100002214207885:2048:Giego Caleiro] for pointer) RE: https://debateolavodugin.blogspot.com/2011/03/olavo-de-carvalho-introduction.html [O]lavo is wonderful. Really. And that particular essay, in eloquent rose, positions the conflict of civilizations (at least as of the late 00’s) correctly. I came to the same analysis except I state that there are only three weapons of coercion (force/law/government, trade/gain/reciprocity, ostracization/inclusion/words/religion) and civilizations have of necessity evolved to specialize in them. I see four propositions where duggin sees three, with the anglo model being nationalism and law, and the globalist problem being semitic. He seems to think some reconciliation is possible. I don’t. The american solution was to mature everyone into commerce in pursuit of world peace. This was partly possible but did not stop each civilizational strategy from pursuing its interests – they have no other choice. The problem for ‘market civilization’ is that the high trust polities will defeat the low trust state and religious(ignorant) polities and as such defeat is intolerable to the others. I am quite certain the anglo model cannot scale and this is the mistake of the anglos from the imperial program through the postwar period. the potential of each (anglo-law jewish finance, russo-sinic state-military, and islamic-terror-cult simply reflects the dominant class structures of each civilization given its stage of development as it entered the modern era. However, of these, the regressive state-islamic, static state-military, parasitic (and soon to be lost) short-lived-universalist-financial, and inter-state-law models: the most intolerant, with the lowest standard of living, with the highest rates of reproduction, will win – because it is the cheapest strategy. My opinion is that the united states and europe’s attempt to imitate her structure, is counter to the european success, and that a return of nation states eliminates the threat of each. in other words: good fences (walls) make good neighbors. My work will end the semitic/financial forever. Once that is done, the islamic is the principle problem, because I see the Anglo-european-russian-chinese civilizations as a division of risk-labor (time) between high risk, risk averse, paranoid, and riskless states. It’s islam that is the enemy of eurasia – the people-of-the-cult (middle easterners) have always and everywhere been the enemy of the great civilizations – ever since they invented the institutionalization of deceit.