Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • SINGLE MOTHERHOOD OR CULTURE? by Aaron Kahland I am going to play Devil’s advoca

    SINGLE MOTHERHOOD OR CULTURE?

    by Aaron Kahland

    I am going to play Devil’s advocate here. Perhaps there is little problem with single mothers per say. After all, countless German boys were raised by single mothers after both WW1 and WW2 – it did not result in high crime rates, drug use and educational problems. The same can likely be said for multiple other countries who lost large numbers of their men – e.g. France post-WW1.

    If so, then the problem is cultural. The culture that has unleashed the contemporary single mothers onto us – specifically in the West. Perhaps they are single for the same reason that they are poor parents – they are simply undesirable – indelibly tainted by both their own upbringings (boomer parents) and the societal environment in which they live.

    Further, the absolute nuclear family simply is most probably super-fragile. It cannot withstand male losses in wartime anymore than it can resist the effects of male losses in welfare-time.

    Young boys having lost fathers in previous periods were enveloped in an environment dominated by grandfathers, surviving uncles, male schoolteachers, male leaders. Today, those boys have none of those and it is to their great detriment. Boys need tribes, instead they get incompetent mothers and television.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 16:32:00 UTC

  • The Conflict of Civilization isn’t with Islam it’s with All of Abrahamism

    See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s with Abrahamism in all its forms. The problem is not only genes but content. And grammars convey the content. And Abrahamic grammar is nothing more than drug dealing for the human mind.

  • The Conflict of Civilization isn’t with Islam it’s with All of Abrahamism

    See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s with Abrahamism in all its forms. The problem is not only genes but content. And grammars convey the content. And Abrahamic grammar is nothing more than drug dealing for the human mind.

  • Women Rule only When Men Can No Longer Reach Consensus – It Is a Death Knell

    From: The Fate of Empires by Arthur John Hubbard (via Noah J Revoy) “An increase of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the Professions hitherto monopolized by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, lbn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”

  • Women Rule only When Men Can No Longer Reach Consensus – It Is a Death Knell

    From: The Fate of Empires by Arthur John Hubbard (via Noah J Revoy) “An increase of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the Professions hitherto monopolized by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, lbn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”

  • WOMEN RULE ONLY WHEN MEN CAN NO LONGER REACH CONSENSUS – IT IS A DEATH KNELL Fro

    WOMEN RULE ONLY WHEN MEN CAN NO LONGER REACH CONSENSUS – IT IS A DEATH KNELL

    From: The Fate of Empires by Arthur John Hubbard

    (via Noah J Revoy)

    “An increase of women in public life has often been associated with national decline.

    The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women

    ruled Rome.

    In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the

    Professions hitherto monopolized by men.

    ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, lbn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’

    Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.

    Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 10:21:00 UTC

  • When we try to understand early society in Scandinavia it is obvious that it was

    When we try to understand early society in Scandinavia it is obvious that it was decisive for an individual to be part of a family and a social group. You were in a way identified by your affiliation to a family, a group and a society.

    The worst punishment you could thus get was to be cut off from this group and society, to be excommunicated or outlawed, which has been described as a ‘social death.’

    In other words we can see that our forefathers had another concept of freedom than we have. Freedom was not defined as an individual freedom, but a right to belong to a fellowship, to be part of a social group. A stranger was often considered as an enemy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 10:05:00 UTC

  • See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s wi

    See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s with Abrahamism.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 23:50:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1009221871294873601

  • See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s wi

    See, you thought the Conflict of Civilizations was with Islam. It’s not. It’s with Abrahamism in all its forms. The problem is not only genes but content. And grammars convey the content. And Abrahamic grammar is nothing more than drug dealing for the human mind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 19:50:00 UTC

  • *Empire of Guns* by Tyler Cowen June 19, 2018 at 7:22 am in Books Economics Hist

    *Empire of Guns*

    by Tyler Cowen June 19, 2018 at 7:22 am in Books Economics History Law Political Science

    The author is Priya Satia, and the subtitle is The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution.

    In fact, there were so many transitions between peace and war that it is difficult to establish what “normal” economic conditions were. Eighteenth-century Europeans accepted war as “inevitable, an ordinary fact of human existence.” It was an utterly unexceptional state of affairs. For Britons in particular, war was something that happened abroad and that kept truly damaging disruption — invasion or rebellion — at bay. Wars that were disruptive elsewhere were understood as preservationist in Britain…Adam Smith’s complaints about the costs of war, about the “ruinous expedient” of perpetual funding and high public debt in peacetime, staked out a contrarian position; The Wealth of Nations (1776) was a work of persuasion. His and other voices in favor of pacific development grew louder from the margins. By denormalizing war, liberal political economy raised the stakes of the century’s long final wars from 1793 to 1815, which could be stomached only as an exceptional, apocalyptic stage on the way to permanent peace.

    In their wake, nineteenth-century Britain packaged their empire as a primarily civilian enterprise focused on liberty, forgetting the earlier collective investment in and profit from the wars that had produced it..

    ————

    Um.

    1) Lets just recall that the Gunpowder Empires of Islam: the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires, predate British Expansionism. Britain just used Sail not Horses, and gave us science, accounting, rule of law, and the industrial revolution rather than Islamic illiteracy and despotism.

    2) There cultural, institutional, and religious reasons that India was conquered by every passing band of malcontents with little more effort than jumping up and down like the opening scenes of 2001 a Space Odyssey.

    3) That the Indian Academy blames everything on the English without consideration that there is an equally high chance India would be second between Africa and Arabia, has failed to keep pace with China, and appears to be regressing politically.

    4) That the Indian Academy has nearly as big a problem with historical pseudoscience as Russians do with Conspiracy, the Chinese do with edibles, and the Africans do with Magic.

    5) Mishra is as much of an anti-western Propagandist as were Derrida, Freud, Boaz, and Marx.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 12:13:00 UTC