Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • THE COMING DARK AGE? OR THE COMING WALLS? Even if we only start from the first A

    THE COMING DARK AGE? OR THE COMING WALLS?

    Even if we only start from the first Aryans, our civilization is 6,000 years old.

    But in that time period we have had two dark ages:

    1)the bronze age collapse from the barbarian migrations 1100/1200bc. All civilizations collapsed. Reading was lost. It lasted about 600 years.

    2) the iron age collapse from the barbarian migrations 300/400ad – 1400/1500ad. It lasted approximately one thousand years.

    Why are we so special that we would not have:

    3) the steel age collapse from the barbarian migrations 1900/2000 – 3000ad? WIll it last a thousand years, or will it last even longer this time?

    THE CHINESE

    The chinese built a wall to keep out the barbarians.

    The Romans failed to build a wall to keep out the barbarians.

    The Germans and Russians failed to build a wall to keep out the barbarians.

    WE HAVE A CHOICE.

    We can build a wall and adopt the chinese strategy, or we can be overcome again – this time without the reserves of our ancient peoples of the north to arise again.

    FORTRESS EUROPA.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 10:49:00 UTC

  • Why do we need continuous therapy in every civilization?

    Why do we need continuous therapy in every civilization?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 07:32:00 UTC

  • Waaay too much sh-t talking in the west. We need more Russians

    Waaay too much sh-t talking in the west. We need more Russians.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 19:30:00 UTC

  • That’s the reason you know. The thing that makes germans the best civilization a

    That’s the reason you know. The thing that makes germans the best civilization also makes them the most gullible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 17:48:00 UTC

  • INDO EUROPEAN RELIGION: THE PRIMACY OF MAN by Daniel Gurpide What is most striki

    INDO EUROPEAN RELIGION: THE PRIMACY OF MAN

    by Daniel Gurpide

    What is most striking when studying Indo-European cosmogony is the solemn affirmation, found everywhere, of man’s primacy. Indo-European cosmogony places a ‘cosmic man’ at the ‘beginning’ of the current cycle of the world. It is from him that all things derive: gods, nature, living beings—and man himself as historical being. In the Indian world, the Rig Veda names him Purusha; his name is Ymir in the Edda; and, according to Tacitus, he was called Mannus among continental Germans. For the Vedic Indians, Purusha is the One through whom the universe begins (again). He is ‘naught but this universe, what has passed and what is yet to come.’ In the same fashion, Ymir is the undivided One: and by him the world is first organised. His own birth results from the meeting of fire and ice.

    The universe does not derive its existence from something not part of it. It proceeds from the being of cosmic man: his body, his gaze, his word—and his consciousness. There is no opposition between two worlds—between created being and uncreated being. On the contrary, there is incessant conversion and consubstantiality between beings and things, between heaven and earth, between men and gods.

    In such a Weltanschauung, the gods are themselves a quarter of the cosmic man. They are superior men in the Nietzschean sense; in a certain way they perpetuate the transfigured and transfiguring memory of the first ‘civilising heroes’: those who brought humankind from its precedent stage—and truly founded, by ordering it into three functions, human society, Indo-European society. These gods do not represent ‘Good’—neither do they represent ‘Evil.’ Insofar as they represent sublimated forms of the good and evil that coexist, as antagonists, within life itself, they are both good and evil. Hence, each presents an ambivalent aspect—a human aspect. This explains why mythical imagination tends to split personality: Mitra-Varuna, Jupiter-Dius Fidius, Odin/Wotan-Tyr, etc. In relation to present humankind, which they have instituted as such, these gods correspond indeed to their mythical ‘ancestors’ and ideal models. Legislators, inventors of social tradition, they remain present, are still active. However, they also remain subject to fatum: destined in a very human way to an ‘end.’

    In brief, we are referring not to creating gods, but rather to creatures—human gods who are, nevertheless, organisers-orderers of the world: ancestral gods for current humankind; gods who are great in both good and evil and who place themselves beyond such notions. On Olympus, says Heraclitus, ‘the gods are immortal men, whereas men are mortal gods; our life is their death and our death their life.’

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 17:42:00 UTC

  • The difference between Chinese and European myths, both of which are deflationar

    The difference between Chinese and European myths, both of which are deflationary, is the same as with our languages: Sinic High-Context Low-Precision, and European Low-Context High-Precision.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:22:00 UTC

  • THE MEANING OF “ARISTOCRACY” by Daniel Gurpide The term ‘aristocracy’ derives fr

    THE MEANING OF “ARISTOCRACY”

    by Daniel Gurpide

    The term ‘aristocracy’ derives from what the ancient Greeks called ‘areté’, the quest for excellence: the act of living up to one’s full potential.

    This tragic urge to self-overcoming (transcendence) may be identified as the only way man and his presence in the world may be ennobled.

    The original Indo-European speakers defined themselves as ‘Aryans’. At the geographical extremes of the great migration, we find Arya in Sanskrit and Indo-Iranian, and Aire in the language of the Irish Celts—out of which probably arose Eire: ‘Irish.’ The root *ar- signifies ‘noble.’

    Since any ‘aristocracy’, if it wants to survive nowadays, should recover and transfigure the founding myths of Indo-European culture, when it comes to specifying its particular virtues, such features as the following might be listed: an eminently aristocratic conception of the human individual; the importance of honour (‘shame’ rather than ‘sin’); a heroic attitude towards life’s challenges; the exaltation and sacralisation of the world, beauty, the body, strength, and health; the rejection of any ‘worlds beyond’; and the inseparability of morality and aesthetics.

    The highest value for an aristocrat would lie not in a form of ‘justice’ whose purpose is essentially interpreted as flattening the social order in the name of equality, but in all that may allow man to surpass himself. Since to consider the implications of life’s basic framework as unjust would be palpably absurd, such classic antitheses as noble vs. base, courageous vs. cowardly, honourable vs. dishonourable, beautiful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy . . . come to replace the antitheses based on the concept of sin: good vs. evil, humble vs. vainglorious, submissive vs. proud, weak vs. arrogant, modest vs. boastful .

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:10:00 UTC

  • THE STRUCTURE OF ‘GOOD’ and ‘TRUE’ RELIGION. As far as I know, the optimum relig

    THE STRUCTURE OF ‘GOOD’ and ‘TRUE’ RELIGION.

    As far as I know, the optimum religion (teaching) we currently can know of consists of:

    1) Myths-Fables-Fairy Tales, Biographies, History.

    2) Literary Analysis: Transcendence, thru Virtues

    3) Disciplines that teach the virtues (and provide comforts)

    4) Reward for learning with the joy of submission to the pack (safety)

    5) Rewarding submission to the pack with Holidays and Festivals.

    (The problem is falsifying consumer-status and virtue signaling which is terribly addictive and makes us crazy.)

    This treatment allows the use of and analysis of all of our vast literature across the “Matters Of” Greece, Rome, Germania, Scandinavia, the Isles, and The Slavic Lands. And to rely on muth, biography and history for lessons.

    And to discourse on the virtues. Since man is constant and his struggles identical in each era, this provides an enormous set of choices for us.

    The difference is, (a) love one another, (b) love your people, (c) work as a community, (d) accept reality as inescapable and (e) adapt yourself to succeed in reality.

    What dogmas (favored messages, favored teachings) will emerge from such an order? I have no idea. The market will solve that problem. But as long as they are not false. As long as they are True, Good, And Desirable, then they are in fact ‘good’.

    HIERARCHY OF INSTITUTIONS

    3) Roman Paganism (archetypes) (categories and measures)

    2) Roman Stoicism (virtues) (via positiva) (subcategories and measures)

    1) Roman Law (limits) (via negativa) (further subcategories and measures)

    0) The Laws of Nature (science) further subcategories and measures)

    THE SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE AND TRUTH

    (read it and weep) (stoicism) (truthful literature)

    1) THE MONOMYTH – Transcendence (Transformation)

    2) THE ARCHETYPES – Characters (Categories)

    3) THE VIRTUES – Comparison Operators (Values)

    4) THE ORDERS – Axioms (Relations: sets of conditions)

    5) THE NARRATIVES – Operations (Methods of change in state)

    6) THE DISCIPLINES – Mindfulness/Stoicism ( Noise Reduction)

    7) THE SCIENCES – Measurement (reduction of ignorance, error, bias, deception reduction)

    8) THE TRUTH – Parsimony (Most Parsimonious Operational Name of a Recipe of Transformation.)

    THE LIMITS

    There exists only one objective – transcendence.

    There exists only one narrative – transcendence

    There exist only a few sub-narratives – methods of transcendence

    There exist only so many non-false virtues – variables of transcendence

    There exist only so many portfolios of virtues – transcendent characters.

    There exist only so many methods of non-false noise reduction – transcendent mind.

    There exist only so many methods of non-false elimination of falsehoods – transcendent reason.

    There exists only so many sets of primary operations – transcendent truths.

    Via-Positiva:

    A myth can employ anthropomorphism in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ hyperbole (super-normalism) in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ any technique to create an immoral condition against which one employs virtues to transcend.

    A myth can employ virtues in an act of transcendence.

    Via Negativa:

    A myth cannot contradict the virtue of transcendence.

    A myth cannot contradict of a virtue of transcendence in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ a falsehood in an act of transcendence

    A myth cannot employ luck or miracles in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, pseudoscience/pseudo-rationalism) in an act of transcendence.

    CONCLUSION

    If a myth can survive these tests then it is true, and good.

    If a myth cannot survives these tests then it is false, and evil.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:02:00 UTC

  • “alt right: the aristocratic civilization’s martial classes have given up hope t

    “alt right: the aristocratic civilization’s martial classes have given up hope that the other classes can join the aristocracy of everyone. And so we must restore our rights, or separate, or both.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 23:51:00 UTC

  • IT”S NOT SO MUCH WHITE AND DARK, AS SUCCESS AND FAILURE AT NEOTONY. The european

    IT”S NOT SO MUCH WHITE AND DARK, AS SUCCESS AND FAILURE AT NEOTONY.

    The european west and the han/japanese/koreans look very different but we have far more in common than we do with the steppe/desert/tundra peoples who are less developed than east and west.

    I mean, fundamentally, caucasians branch just into two groups: the more evolved Neotonic northern with flatter faces and smaller noses and lighter hair, and the less evolved less Neotonic southern with pointier faces and bigger noses and darker hair.

    I mean, the real problem if you want to get down to it, is that the east and west succeeded in neoteny and the center did not, for the simple reason that there were too many tribes in conflict, and the area was more suitable to the preservation of pastoralism, so the desert, steppe, and tundra people didn’t have as much time to go through the farming and commercial phases, shrink their underclasses, and succeed in neotonic evolutoin.

    I mean. They’re more aggressive. It’s simple.

    Aggression and large numbers that live poor quality lives is a competitive advantage against less aggressive with smaller numbers that live better lives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 23:27:00 UTC