MODESTY AS MEANS OF ADMITTING CULTURAL FAILURE
Islam, christianity, and judaism requires different degrees of modesty. Aristocracy requires display, just non imposition.
in other words, they could not solve the problem of non imposition, so they denied people expression.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 12:15:00 UTC
Muhammed = King Arthur, != Alexander
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 11:36:00 UTC
–“Generally speaking, Roman Citizens were not sentenced to capital punishment if they murdered another Roman Citizen of equal status,but were more often fined or exiled, and if they were executed they were beheaded, which was regarded as a more honourable way to die. If a Roman Citizen killed a slave or any person of lesser status then there was no punishment at all. Protecting the status and position of the Roman Citizens was considered to be a paramount concern and to be stripped of that status was one of the worst punishments imaginable, especially as then you could be subjected to one of the more inventive methods of Roman execution. So public executions were generally events put on to execute slaves who had run away, prisoners of war, common criminals and army deserters, and were regarded as great spectacles and a form or entertainment. The early Christians were also often publicly executed because of their refusal to worship or make sacrifices to the Roman gods or the Emperor. There were special areas set aside in Roman towns for public executions, usually outside the town gates, and also in the same arena where the gladiatorial games took place.”—
RESTITUTION
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 10:44:00 UTC
COMPARING ABRAHAMIC PHILOSOPHY AND ARISTOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY BY OUR EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES – CONTRASTS IMPROVE COMPREHENSION
Europeans combined testimony (truthful, empirical, military reporting), horse, wheel, and bronze, took control of their destiny, and invented paternalistic sky gods and heroes, and conquered from spain to china, and arctic circle to north africa.
The research has not settled the argument yet, but Europeans either wholly replaced, or conquered these peoples and profited from ruling them. It looks increasingly like it was a process of horizontal (european plain) replacement, and vertical (north-south) rule.
But the central observation we can take away from the european expansion, is the domestication of man for profit. First displace, then enslave, then serfdom, then freedom, then liberty (property), then enfranchisement. They did it by militia. And this is their secret and the secret of the west. The militia, and the indoctrination of the ordinary man into martial epistemology (objective truthfulness upon pain of death). So truthfulness was the means of status signaling despite its disruption just as military tactics and scientific advantage are beneficial to the group despite their political distributions. when you build a hierarchy of truth it can reorganize easily because it need not expose lies.
Western man competes by deflationary (scientific) truth. And this is unique among civilizations. And truth like heroism, is rewarded, regardless of the cost to the reorganization of the status (dominance) hierarchy.
This rapid adaptability is the secret to why western civlization evolved faster than the rest in the ancient and modern worlds: lower friction of reorganization of strategy and tactics because strategy and tactics were empirical rather than authoritarian, literary, or fictitious. More rapid suppression of parasitism through the natural, common law, and independent judges. More risk taking and innovation in commerce. The continuous indoctrination of males into truth telling as a means of climbing the status hierarchy (a form of conspicuous consumption signal actually – by showing you could bear the cost of truthfulness.)
We took the strategy of outmaneuver by horse and chariot to outmaneuver across our entire civilization by increasingly rapid means of adaptation, by using truth as the central organizing principle, that allowed reorganization without threatening the overall hierarchy. The strategy of heroism, heroic truth, and jury, turns out to simply produce the least cost and least time means of adaptation humans have invented or CAN invent.
It’s not hard. You can turn all christian philosophy’s claims (submission), jewish philosophy’s claims of creating peace (safety for jews), or the musllms claims of creating peace (aggression) on its head by studying the history of the jews:
A poor, migratory, pastoral people, with high inbreeding, high clannishness, reverse sexual dimorphism, and who experienced their age of transformation as slaves, never adapted to land-holding, or developed land holding virtues, norms, institutions, laws and traditions, nor through selection developed a masculine aristocracy, or permanent warrior class, then industrialized the lying and wishful thinking of slaves, and upon obtaining literacy, selected for amplifying all their reverse sexual dimorphism (female reproductive strategy), and supporting values, and through their males, weaponized the reproductive strategy of women: wishful thinking, gossip, and deceit, by which to bring about a restored primitive matrilineal order. In other words, just as women evolved gossip to rally males against alphas, jews continued this strategy of gossiping
Just as women make their men weak if given the opportunity, jews make their hosts weak if given the opportunity.
Just as women ridicule, shame, gossip, and rally, jews do so but on an industrial scale with great deal of sophistication.
Just as women are superior at speech and men at action, jews are superior at speech, and aristocracy superior in action.
Just as women are petty and treat each other horribly if empowered, jews are petty and treat others horribly if empowered.
We have already had one jewish empire: the soviet union. And we must never have that happen to mankind again.
So, for the good of our people, if not for the good of mankind, no more Abrahamism: judaism, christianity, islam.
So no more Cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Rand, of the millions of jewish propagandists.
So no more postmodernism: Foucault, Derrida, and all.
So no more feminism and its history of pseudoscience. Reciprocity and Meritocracy are as they are, without the wishful thinking and parasitism of women.
We know the name of pandora: Abrahamism of the Jews, and its cancerous by the christians and muslims and by consequence, the rest of the world.
How do we stop abrahamism, cosmopolitanism, and the ridicule, shaming, rallying, and gossip of women?
Reciprocity, Truth. Testimonialism. Natural Law. Punishment. Zero Tolerance.
The via positiva law of Reciprocity (natural law):
The via negativa law is non imposition of costs
The via positiva of words is truth, of actions is exchange,
The via negativa is zero tolerance
And that is the aristocratic (white) version of Sharia.
Meaning that zero tolerance, requires mastery of violence.
Mastery of violence is expensive.
Therefore it must be profitable.
Aristocracy’s first industry is violence for the purpose of conducting zero tolerance of impositions of costs, by words or deeds, directly or indirectly,
The common people need only rule of law to protect them – when empowered they are parasites. all else can be produced by voluntary rather than coercive organizations.
The people who demonstrate productivity through reciprocity of production need means of developing commons by which to create multipliers of their productivity. They require a market for the production of commons: houses of the commons.
The people who demonstrate productivity through defense of reciprocity: militia and army, sheriff and judiciary, regional nobility and the monarchy, require a house of government to limit the houses of the commons.
With courts of reciprocity under universal standing and universal application a market for reciprocity can form without the monopoly rule of government to fabricate it. Then government can be used for its only moral purpose: the creation of contracts for the production and maintenance of commons – where these contracts must survive the market for reciprocity we call the courts.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 09:34:00 UTC
I’ll give you the best answer I can, having spent some time on this question myself.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-ethnic-groups-are-there-in-the-whole-world
I’ll give you the best answer I can, having spent some time on this question myself.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-ethnic-groups-are-there-in-the-whole-world
Go home. Hartford is one of America’s poorest cities and only shortly behind Detroit in lifecycle. It is a city of nihilism and despair with only the crude business of insurance to provide tax revenues.
The University of Hartford had an opportunity in the 70’s to develop into a meaningful institution of science, technology, mathematics, economics, and law, on is rather gorgeous campus, but embraced the popular trend of postmodernists and is now just a mediocre waypoint for the underperforming middle classes from long island and new jersey, and the desperate few who seek to extend their adult skills and remain in the Hartford area rather than take flight to a state that is not in decline and bankruptcy due to the combination of anglo puritanism and jewish cosmopolitanism that have made the state a pariah for education, engineering, and technology.
Let the last person with an IQ over 80 more than five miles north of the connecticut shoreline, turn out the lights.
U of H is like the malls of New Jersey. It just hasn’t gone out of business yet.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-things-to-do-on-weekends-as-a-student-at-the-University-of-Hartford
http://68.media.tumblr.com/9bd47868450a065d472a80383e80a60a/tumblr_inline_muqgje6p0F1qhtuka.jpgTHE FALSE STORY OF ISLAM?
A conversation In the context of this book:
Did Mohammed Exist?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JBRUKMG/
The story of Islam is, in essence, the following..
There was always a strain of Jewish thought more inclined towards Messianism….after all the Jewish holy books proclaim the coming of a Messiah.
After Jesus’ death, some Jews pronounced him the Messiah.
The Messians, or Nazarenes, were a Jewish sect. They differed from that group of Jews following Christ who became Christians.
After the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Nazarenes saw it as a sign that they were vindicated.
The failure of Jews to recognize the Messiah had led to the destruction of the Temple (I believe some Christians believe this also).
So, like the Christians before them, they left Israel and went North to Bekaa: a Valley in Lebanon. It was here that they began convert Arabs to their Sect.
This sect differed from mainstream Judaism which rejects prosyletizing.
The Nazarenes sought to convert / ally with the Arabs to achieve their principal goal – the recapture of the holy city of Jerusalem – which they now believed was in the hands of apostates (mainstream Jews).
The Nazarenes gave the Arabs their texts (in Aramaic script) and they were successful in converting many of them.
The Arabs were motivated by the opportunity for conquest and they proceeded to invade Jerusalem.
After invading Jerusalem these Arabs promptly went to the Temple Mount and began to pray.
They then initiated construction of a new temple on the ruins of the old temple destroyed 550 years earlier – entirely consistent with the aims of the Nazarenes.
This was later the very same spot where the Al Aqsa Mosque was built. Their construction was based on dimensions of the old Temple built by Herod.
Later, there was a falling out between the Arabs and the Nazarenes. The Arabs slaughtered the Nazarene rabbis.
But those early Nazarene texts became the foundational literature for the Koran.
Much of the Koran is simply a bad Arab translation of the original Aramaic. I.e. the 72 virgins nonsense is a mistranslation of 72 royal raisins – no joke – white raisins were a specialty reserved for the very rich. Further, the Koran is littered with references to the Nazarenes.
Muslims simply say that Nazarene = Christian
yet the Christians never referred to themselves as Nazarenes.
Further, the Koran writes about early Nazarene rabbis conducting marriage rights for the early Muslims.
It also states that the Nazarenes are those closest to the Muslims.
The Koran also has multiple references that are anti-Jewish – in fact the Koran is openly hostile towards the Jewish religion – which is entirely consistent with the feelings the early Nazarenes had towards the mainstream Jews.
Incidentally, there is not a single reference to Mecca in the Koran – instead the holy place for Muslims is referred to as Bekka – which is where the Nazarenes went into exile.
We also know from archeology that it is towards Bekka where the early proto-Muslims prayed – because this is where their Mosques were pointed towards.
Mecca being the holy city is an elaborate fabrication that was added to Islam as a means of solidifying Arabs politically.
They needed this new religion to be a pro-Arab ideology so a non-Arab city would not do.
The problem is that the Koran describes Bekka as a flourishing agricultural valley filled with olive groves.
…Mecca never had olives – ever – not now, not then – we know this from archeological study. It is a desert trading outpost and always was.
Islam was designed when there was conflict amongst the Arabs on which leader would assume control of the territories that its nomadic warriors had created.
One Arab contender had claimed that his opponent wasn’t loyal to this new faith with the prophet Mohammed. That Arab lost the battle for succession but the winner saw the political use of the religion and from that arose Islam.
Mohammad, at the time, was simply an honorific meaning ‘the blessed’ – and was a title used for Jesus by the Nazarenes.
(CURT: So basically the mediterranean civilizations reached maximum under the roman empire, and made possible the expansions of germans to the north, the slavs and others to the east, and the arabs to the southeast, wand the ‘migration period’ made possible by the technological innovations of the ancient empires is what produced the fall of those empires.
So the fall of the ancient civilizations is a SINGLE EVENT from all directions, caused by the empowerment of the lesser peoples on her borders. )
Mohammad later became a name just like ‘Christian’ did.
I don’t understand how mohammed and the koran are united into a single ‘movement’.
It’s all interlinked. The Arabs would never have succeeded if not for the fall of Byzantine and Persia due to their wars with one another.
Had they not succeeded there would have been no Arab conquest and no lands to inherit and no need for a religion to justify political unity over those lands.
The religion was needed to build an Empire. And unite it while at the same time justifying Arab supremacy.
Of course the expansion need not stop. Nomadic warriors desired more conquest and Islam gave them justification.
(CURT: So basically judaism was invented to unite a few small semitic tribes against occupeiers, and this ‘techniology’ of the christians and arabs assisted tribes in uniting against the romans, byzantines, egyptians, and persians. Nomadic warriors live off predation, they don’t need to be funded by an army. )
That also explains why the Koran is actually so secular. The creation of a caliphate is very explicit.
The ‘Muslim realm’ is clearly outlined and its expansion encouraged.
This is all simply politics.
So what is mohammed doing when he is running around? does it have anything to do with religion or is he just having a war of it and then the religion comes in later? Or does he propose the religion as he’s going around warring?
Yes, the Arabs saw the value of religion to unite themselves and to ward of internal conflict.
It was initially very much an Arab endeavour – only later did others join them.
So they maintained the proselytizing of their Nazarene creators but changed the writings to aid their politics.
The idea that there was ever a Mohammad in Mecca that then conquered Jerusalem is ridiculous.
I fact they were not even Muslims at the time. When they entered Jerusalem, the Jews even welcomed them because they believed they may also be Jews – this belief was reinforced when the Arabs prayed on the Temple Mount.
But Jewish or Nazarene Arabs were not politically useful.
We have no independent information outside Arab sources that Mohammad ever existed. He is likely a fabrication or a construction out of Jesus and one or more Arabs.
When the Arabs first conquered Jerusalem, not one Arab, ever, mentioned Mohammed. The Jews and Christians living there were interacting with these invaders and writing about them. Not once did they mention Mohammed – they did mention a prophet but never Mohammed.
This is consistent with the idea that they were proto-Muslims – somewhere still between the Nazarenes and Islam.
The Koran, of course, hadn’t yet been written.
The Koran was written 80 years after Mohammed presumably died – of course, outside the Koran and the Suras we have no evidence that he ever lived. Despite the fact that the Muslims claim his armies conquered Jerusalem.
It would be like the Macedonians conquering Babylon and the conquerors never mentioning Alexander.
Further, and I find this fascinating.. take a look at this photo of one of the first coins the Arabs minted after conquering Jerusalem. (link deleted)
On the one side is a man with a cross (Jesus), on the other is the inscription ‘M’
‘M’ for Mohammed: “The Blessed”.
This is consistent with the Arabs referring to Jesus as ‘the Blessed’.. Mohammed translates to ‘the Blessed’ and was reserved for pious persons. i.e. used by Arab Christians for Jesus.
So what does mohammed translate to in that period?
the name I mean.
…but entirely inconsistent with Islamic theology which forbids the display of the cross and certainly not by Muslims who do not believe Jesus died on the cross.
However, it is entirely consistent with the Nazarene concept of Jesus being the Messiah.
Alternatively, means ‘the praised’ or ‘the praiseworthy.’
again, how early Arab Christians referred to Jesus just as Greek Christians referred to him as Christ.
Not to suggest that it was exclusively used for Jesus. The coin however makes it obvious that it was used also for him.
Some say the meaning of ‘Mohammed’ can also be translated as ‘the chosen one’ – which, again, is consistent with Nazarene image of Jesus as the Messiah.
It is probable that the title was used for Jesus because of the Christian phrase, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”
( CURT: So muhammed is just king arthur? both have likely original individuals of ordinary status, but are conflated with jesus? )
Right.
The Nazarenes tried converted some Arabs to their sect around 600 (when the Muslim Mohammed supposedly existed).
They later went on to invade and capture Jerusalem. Proceeded to build a replica of part of Herod’s temple on top of it – where later Arabs built a Mosque (Al Aqsa) on the same spot – and claimed that the earlier Arabs were, indeed, followers of the Muslim Mohammed.
After the creation of Islam, the Arabs claimed the word
Nazarene in the Koran is a reference to the Christians.
This despite the Muslims being far closer to the Jews in almost every respect.
However, it becomes obvious what the reference is when considering that the reference is, in fact, to the original Nazarenes not the actual Christians who never used the term Nazarenes to describe themselves.
So, in a nutshell, Islam is a politically motivated fabrication based on the foundation of a Jewish sect.
It’s ridiculousness is only matched by its success.
I don’t believe it could ever have gained any traction outside of the Arab peninsular because of the sheer obviousness of its fabrication.
Orientalists in the West, using Western historical methods are pulling Islam to pieces. And this is being supported by archeological finds and linguistics (Aramaic) experts.
The whole thing is a gigantic fraud.
The arabs have tried to carefully hide their tracks – i.e. burning Nazarene texts and alternative Korans.
Hence the burning of the libraries as they moved westward.
(CURT: Thanks. Can I share this?)
Yes. Anonymously.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 12:16:00 UTC
Men make truthful arguments.This is the secret to western civilization:tolerance for truth despite its high cost to the dominance hierarchy.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 07:31:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867281981234704388
Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867281661121245184
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@EasternMarxist When you Ridicule, Rally, and Shame you circumvent making an argument and show yourself but effeminate, and marxist pseudo intellectual.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/867281661121245184
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@EasternMarxist When you Ridicule, Rally, and Shame you circumvent making an argument and show yourself but effeminate, and marxist pseudo intellectual.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/867281661121245184
HOW ARE RUSSIANS AND UKRAINIANS DIFFERENT?
(from elsewhere, comparing russians and ukrainians)
1) Muscovites vs Russians. Two very different things.
2) West Ukrainians(Lviv) vs East Ukrainians Kyiv and east). Two very different things.
AND SO….
West Ukrainians are a little bit more gentle, patient. (more like american heartland)
East Ukrainians are a bit more assertive, and impatient and less cultured. (More like a slow moving New Jersey?)
Muscovites better educated, cultured, and confident. (more like a more cultured and much less ‘bullshit’ tolerant version of New York. Moscow would be a city of choice for me).
Russians proper. No good analogy. Maybe like our white southerners? Black Irish. Scotts Irish? Yes. That’s pretty close.
In general, the more Russified the more the women take pride. The more polish the less. But in general, family is still the central social unit, not the individual. which is a good thing.
The women are the finest in the world and there is no comparison.
And I would rather spend time with Russian men than any other men in the world.
The are the only ‘real men’ left on earth.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-23 13:45:00 UTC