Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • Description Of The Decline Of The Blue Model

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/02/28/beyond-blue-6-the-great-divorce/Heartfelt Description Of The Decline Of The Blue Model.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-01 18:27:00 UTC

  • An Propertarian Interpretation Of The Timeline Of Philosophy

    The history of philosophy can be reduced to the five struggles: 1) First, between man’s primary desire to retreat into the limits of his senses in the face of evolving complexity, and his reluctant acknowledgement that he must learn and employ the tools of reason and calculation in order to extend those limited senses, despite the discomfort these unintuitive abstract tools subject him to. 2) Second, the conflict between his preference for the material ease of the division of labor and his emotional discomfort at the consequential alienation caused by post-tribal, post familial, and increasingly individualistic commercial society. 3) Third, between the comfort of historical norms and the precious status we each achieve by adhering to them, and the opportunity of economic, technical and organizational innovation that of necessity disrupts those norms. 4) Fourth, the need to develop justification of our system of norms such that we can resist or conquer the economic strategies, organizational strategies, and status signals embedded in competing systems of norms.” 5) And fifth, the most disturbing: between the masculine aristocratic inter-temporal instinct to concentrate capital and to constrain the breeding and consumption of the lower classes, and the feminine communal instinct to perpetuate her genes no matter how she has bred them, and her defensive posture of granting others the same opportunity, despite that it threatens us with Malthusian fragility, and eternal poverty. These five conflicts define the history of philosophy as an attempt to justify existing norms, or an appeal to modify them so that we may adapt to the future or regress into the past. The Real Class Struggle is not hierarchical, it’s vertical. The proletarians are simply the tools of each. There are only three forms of human persuasion and three forms of political persuasion:

      Martial

            Public Intellectual

                  Entrepreneurial

                    The Philosophical Eras:

                    • POST ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY 1970-> ( Abandonment of the transcendental program and complete reliance on natural sciences )

                      2) Postanalytic philosophy makes use of the methods of analytic philosophy, but opposes its transcendental aspirations and its assumption that we’re engage in a process discovery rather than invention. 3) Postanalytic philosophy is also referred to as Postphilosophy: the notion that philosophy no longer serves its historical role in society, having been replaced by the natural sciences and the wide availability of literacy, media, and information. Notes:1)I have very little confidence in the symbolic system outside of using very simple diagrams. And political philosophy, by its nature, requires that we use common language in an effort to make our ideas accessible to non specialists who can then proselytize our ideas to the common man. As such, I see symbolic systems as a convenient but self-defeating shorthand that serves only to inhibit us from achieving our goals.)2)I believe the discipline of philosophy can add value to the post-analytical era, not just in ensuring the fitness of minds, but that philosophers must reorder causal categories using empirical information so that new useful narratives can be added to the political discourse in order to assist in the evolution of norms from those that are beneficial in and older technological and organizational state to those that will be more beneficial in the new technological and organizational state.

                      • ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY 1900-1960 ( Incorporation of Natural Sciences, abandoning history, abandoning religion, abandoning norms, while retaining the transcendental program. )

                      The term “analytic philosophy” refers to a method of argument that emphasizes clarity – testable rather than normative statements. It uses:

                              Analytic philosophy is identified with specific philosophical commitments (many of which are rejected by contemporary analytic philosophers), such as:

                              • THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REVOLUTION
                              • THE CONTINENTAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION AGAINST ANGLO EMPIRICISM
                              • THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION III – ANGLO EMPIRICISM NORTHERN ITALIAN RATIONALISM AND GERMANIC LITERACY Empiricism, Restoration of monarchies, And The Return To Reason
                              • THE REVOLT AGAINST REASON AND MODERNITY 70AD->1400 ( Incorporation of Magianism – The Spread Of Ignorance From Augustine To William Of Ockham )
                              • THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION II – RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE – The First Commercial Society ( Greek Rationalism – The Emphasis On Human Actions – Empirical Pragmatism )

                                2) The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of propositions, often using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system of notation. The logical form is a way of representing a proposition in similarity with all other propositions of the same type. 3) The rejection of heavily loaded and inarticulate philosophical systems in favor of attention to detail, exposing causal relations, using ordinary, clear language. But practically speaking, the analytical program was an attempt to turn philosophy into a natural science, to retain philosophy’s historical public importance by pursuing the transcendental program. And it was a total failure outside of improving the philosophy of science. Empiricists Adapt To Modernity ( Attempts To Retain Historical Norms In The Face Of The Agricultural and Industrial Revolution, Science and Darwin ) The Germans And The French Hold On To History, Hierarchy And Privilege. France As The Most Backward Country In Europe The Anti-Empirical French Moralists The Bloody Revolution As Proof Of Failure The Third Attempt At Germanic Expansion The Marxist Religion As A Revolt Against Modernity The Return Of Science The Return Of Commercial Society In Italy The Move Of Trade From The Mediterranean to the Atlantic The Rise Of British Empirical Pragmatism The Downfall Of Islamic Disruption Of Trade The Scholastic’s React To The Conquistadors The Printing Press And Germanic Craftsmanship The The Second Attempt At Germanic Expansion The Roman Problems Of Administering A Landed Empire Rather Than A Naval Empire The Abrahamic Invasion and Conquest The Surrender to Immigration and Over-expansion The Justinian Oppression Of Northern Europe The Augustinian Attempt At Assimilation. The Plagues And The Shortage Of Coinage The Jewish Revolt Against Reason The Islamic Revolt Against Reason The Hindu Revolt Against Reason The Chinese Revolt Against Reason The Arab Conquest of Mediterranean Trade  

                                  • GREAT TRANSFORMATION I – THE AGRARIAN REVOLUTION AND RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS ( The Scriptural Religions – Uniting The Tribes – The Agrarian Era )
                                  • NATURAL RELIGION ( Rituals Staring With Sacrifice )

                                  A Few Timelines Of Philosophy Elsewhere: The Basic Philosophy Alternative To WikipediaThe Thompson Wadsworth Philosophy TimelineThe Western Philosophy Movements TimelineRIT’s Timeline of Major PhilosophersThe HyperHistory Wall ChartPeter von Stackelberg’s Comparative History Chart

                                • A SWEET PARAGRAPH FROM THIS MORING’S WORK ON PHILOSOPHY “This history of philoso

                                  A SWEET PARAGRAPH FROM THIS MORING’S WORK ON PHILOSOPHY

                                  “This history of philosophy can be reduced to the five struggles:

                                  1) First, between man’s primary desire to retreat into the limits of his senses in the face of evolving complexity, and his reluctant acknowledgement that he must learn and employ the tools of reason and calculation in order to extend those limited senses, despite the discomfort these unintuitive abstract tools subject him to.

                                  2) Second, the conflict between his preference for the material ease of commercial society and his emotional discomfort at the consequential alienation caused by post-tribal, post familial, and increasingly individualistic commercial society.

                                  3) Third, between the comfort of historical norms and the precious status we achieve by adhering to them, and the opportunity of economic, technical and organizational innovation that of necessity disrupts those norms.

                                  4) Fourth, the need to develop justification of our system of norms such that we can resist or conquer the economic strategies, organizational strategies, and status signals embedded in competing systems of norms.”

                                  5) And fifth, between the masculine aristocratic inter-temporal instinct to concentrate capital and to constrain the breeding and consumption of the lower classes, and the feminine communal instinct to perpetuate her genes no matter how she has bred them, and her defensive posture of granting others the same opportunity, despite that it threatens us with Malthusian fragility.

                                  These five conflicts define the history of philosophy as an attempt to justify existing norms, or an appeal to modify them so that we may adapt to the future or regress into the past.”

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-19 12:15:00 UTC

                                • A Followup On The Source of Western Individualism

                                  I should follow up on my last post with this thought: 1) For the fist time in western history, military leadership has been effectively denuded of political power. Our politicians are not only not required to have demonstrated military experience, but our generals are conspicuously absent from the political stage. Their departure is partly due to the change of the military’s focus from competition between tribes and states to the battle between consumer capitalism and world communism. A conflict which instead of pitting a group of classes against another group of classes, pitted classes within groups against one another. The pervasive fear of the military caused by the strategy of mutually assured destruction didn’t help reform military perception. And the cultural, regional, racial and religious factionalization of the USA combined with the leftist conquest of academia (sometimes by physical force) ((See Cornell University)) rendered the anti-martial sentiment a persistent property of the populist cultural norms. ALthough one feature of this change is interesting: The military as an institution has largely succeeded in maintaining the respect of the populace. The politicians are blamed for the misuse of military force. 2) If there are only three types of coercive political power: Force (the military and the militia), Moral (priests and public intellectuals), and Exchange (entrepreneurs and financiers), then one third of the balance of power has been removed from our political sphere. I would stipulate this is what instinctively troubles aristocratic conservatives. Not only are Whites becoming a minority, but their martial leadership has been ostracized from power. Social conservatives can still rally around the church for communal confirmation. But aristocratic conservatives cannot – they have no political venue. From antiquity until 1960, a male could seek status and acceptance through military service (and looting), familial provider-ship (and access to sex), religious conformity (demonstrated commitment to the community), and productive labor (craftsmanship), or at the very least, simply providing the service of his physical strength. Under agrarianism almost all of these venues are open to all men. Under industrialization the set is reduced. Under the information age, the male’s entire existence became materially undesirable. This is why the underclass males are abandoning marriage, religion, work, and even fear of imprisonment – they adopt a new version of mediterranean bravado. Upper class males are abandoning society altogether. The middle class and the upper proletariat fuss with the empire while its natural aristocracy revels in effete consumer decadence.) 3) I do not see a means of developing a natural aristocracy given the decline of agrarian self-sufficiency, the end of the regimental system in favor of conscription and state funding, and the rise of the majority of occupations that no longer participate in the market. Democracy is a slow road to totalitarian communism. And I do not see, absent some sort of extremely disruptive economic and geopolitical event, a way of altering this trend. WE will return to ignorance and poverty – or more likely, a two class system on the order of south america.

                                • The Source Of Western Individualism Is In Its Military Strategy

                                  The Source Of Western Individualism Is In Its Military Strategy http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/15/the-source-of-western-individualism-is-in-its-military-strategy/

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-15 16:56:42 UTC

                                  Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/169827483984740356

                                • Letter To HBD_Chick on the source of western individualism

                                  http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/15/the-source-of-western-individualism-is-in-its-military-strategy/A Letter To HBD_Chick on the source of western individualism.

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-15 11:55:00 UTC

                                • EXPANSION MATCHES THE HAJNAL LINE WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Because the relationship

                                  http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/medieval-manoralism-and-the-hajnal-line/MANORIAL EXPANSION MATCHES THE HAJNAL LINE

                                  WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Because the relationship between the protestant ethic, the inclusion of women in the work force, the relative equality of women, late marriage, consanguineous marriage. ie: The lower classes had a harder time breeding. People got smarter. Unlike now, where people are getting marginally smarter but on average the world is getting ‘dumber’.

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-10 10:15:00 UTC

                                • WHAT IS THE HAJNAL LINE? It is the line the separates the germanic manorial marr

                                  WHAT IS THE HAJNAL LINE?

                                  It is the line the separates the germanic manorial marriage pattern (late marriage, fewer children) from the early marriage cultures.

                                  WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

                                  Because the manorial system seems to have increased northern european IQ.

                                  Source date (UTC): 2012-02-10 10:06:00 UTC

                                • Changing Identity: From American to English-American, to Diasporic Englishman

                                  Sometime within the past six months, I have unconsciously ceased to consider myself an American, and begun to think of myself as an English American – or even just a diasporic Englishman. It wasn’t something I chose. It wasn’t a decision. It was the result of living through these interesting, and increasingly fractious times, while writing on political philosophy. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE The English population of the States varied from around 50% to around 60% prior to 1800. Over time, due to the immigration needed to fill the Louisiana purchase to keep the west free from another French or English war, then due to the further westward expansion, that number has decreased to about 25% in 1980. And now, it’s declined to something between 9% and 12% — depending upon the various data we refer to. Demographically people of English decent are spread in a band from Maine to Oregon, predominantly along the 40th-46th parallel, with rural northeast, midwest, northern Rocky, and the north west the only places that they are more than 10% of the population.

                                  (As of 2000AD. We do not have the 2010 data yet.) Interestingly enough, if we look at the UK today, almost all the variation in IQ scores occurs within the ‘middle class’ or what we in the states would call the ‘upper middle class’. It’s dramatic enough that it skews the averages upward. There is a subset of the British people that represent the Northern European version of the Ashkenazim. IMPACT Will the decline of Anglos impact the national culture, or it’s legal system? We know that it takes about 10-15% of the population to hold an idea or value before it becomes part of the culture. It’s Pareto’s principle at work yet again: 1% figure out everything, 5% translate it, 10% prosthelytize it, and the rest follow them. If different groups ally together then ideas can be driven into the society’s norms simply by the process of ideological-flocking. Does that mean that Anglo values will, simply by demographic dilution, decline in influence within those norms? Perhaps, very slowly. It takes about two generations to change basic values, and four for them to fully disappear. And the English Americans aren’t alone. Our cousins the Germans are about equal in percentage and distribution across the country. The Irish and Italians had their impact. And now the Hispanic(Indians) join the Africans. The Asians and Hindus aren’t much of an influence yet. But it’s quite clear that those groups will come to dominate certain social classes and therefore have greater and less likelihood to influence the national culture. And if we look at our history, the Catholics achieved precisely what the protestants warned they would, and the Jews accomplished what the Catholics warned about, and now the Supreme court is a mix of Jewish and catholic, with english and germanic protestants noticeably absent. So significant change can occur in less than a century. Somehow I find that oddly fascinating. But the sentiment of collectivism in the catholics (who represent Europe’s lower classes) and the Jews, as well as that of the hispanics, will certainly express itself in institutional changes, as the germanic protestant culture and it’s calvinist roots are out bred and out immigrated, and those people become a minority. This change from majority to minority is the origin of the Tea Party movement in the states and the BNP-related movements in the UK – white people are acting like a minority, and will soon lose all care and guilt over their advantages, or their colonialist history. THE END OF GUILT But what will change, and is changing rapidly, is the desire for whites, whether protestant or catholic, (or those under the self delusion that they’re neither), to demonstrate that they are acting fairly and justly by granting others special rights as a means of getting over ‘white guilt’. What guilt is a remnant of what one side sees as colonialism, and the other side sees as dragging humanity out of agrarian mysticism, ignorance and poverty. That period of ‘guilt’ is about to come to a permanent end. (( See Paul Gottfried’s work on Guilt. )) The protestants, and then the catholics, will hold no privileged position. No inherited advantage. We’ll want our own protections. And we’ll want revocation of those prior advantages that we gave away. (( Instead of simply systematically invalidating Jim Crowe Laws.)) Colonial guilt is especially vivid in the English. English people were effete, technocratic, and messianic as well as colonialist. And the best technologies that they distributed to those cultures was christianity, accounting, empiricism, medicine, and the common law. They surrendered their colonies fairly easily. And in 500 years they dragged civilization into the modern age – despite the attempts of French intellectuals, and Marxists to fight them off. The most illustrative statement about English ethics is a quote my Mao: “If India had been a French colony, Gandhi never would have been an old man”. And the state of British colonies versus french colonies is all the evidence needed to demonstrate the different cultural virtues. THE TRIBE We’re a tribal people. Brits today are tribal in general. Remarkably so. And classicist as well – which is where the tribalism comes from. The English are already a diasporic people. a minority that was once in control of vast continents. But unlike the other diasporic capitalist peoples: the Jews, Chinese, Hindus and Armenians, we have a deep seated love of the land that is buried in our mythology and our values. Without control of land we are permanently frustrated from expressing our ancient desire to work metal, bend nature, and demonstrate our political devotion and social status, by making the world – every inch of it – a work of art that is left behind us, as a record of our character. RETURN TO TRIBALISM So, my country has left me, and I have left it. The romantic attachment I had to the constitution, the bill of rights, the revolution, its ideology — and my fervent patriotism — left along with it. It’s been a long hard attack on the ‘White Protestant Nation’. But like water on a rock, it’s been successful – unfortunately, almost entirely through the evasion and dilution of the 14th amendment, and the democratization of the Senate. The constitution was an innovation, it was brilliant, but it wasn’t strong enough. The most interesting thing, is that this destruction was done largely by women – initially puritan women – who, in America, liberated by the industrial revolution, then later by the availability of consumer appliances, directed their anger at men, rather than the church — as they did in most countries. (Which is what explains the peculiarly inaffectionate businesslike relationship between men and women in the states, versus other western countries that so many foreigners seem to notice.) THE FORBIDDEN TRIBE Political pressure and rent-seeking from other groups under the ruse of equality — but in reality for the purpose of rent-seeking and access to status and political power — has succeeded in forming a normative and institutional prohibition against our forming a separatist identity as does everyone else. It is entirely acceptable to promote a jewish homeland. It is entirely acceptable to have a jewish defense league, or a La Raza, or a black national movement. Everyone else can be sectarian, but we are forbidden it. In Canada, the lowest caste with the least rights, is white males – by law. In England, bureaucrats starve pensioners but pay the bills of ‘asylum seekers’ — in one of the most perverse incentive schemes ever to create a privileged political class. Now, if a people do not promote their country, their government, their institutions, and their way of life? What do they do? If their history is forbidden to them in their schools? If they are demonize? What do they do? The answer is consistent for all diasporic people: they form a predatory capitalist minority that works within the statute law, but profits from asymmetrical observation of all norms. Norms: habits, manners, ethics, morals — they take care of their own. Just as recent immigrants to the USA go through criminal, small business, and integrated phases. We are members of a forbidden tribe. Our religion is forbidden. Our values are forbidden. Our meritocratic, individualist, aristocratic social system is forbidden. Our history is forbidden. So, how do I feel about being a member of the Forbidden Tribe? I wish Mother England would open her doors to us, so that those of us who are still willing may return home to our live among our own. I am sorry that our ancestors waged a revolution in order to avoid paying for the french and indian war. God Save The Queen. And may God save our English people. (EDIT FOUND THIS) If you can pronounce correctly every word in this poem, you will be speaking English better than 90% of the native English speakers in the world. After trying the verses, a Frenchman said he’d prefer six months of hard labour to reading six lines aloud. Dearest creature in creation, Study English pronunciation. I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse. I will keep you, Suzy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy. Tear in eye, your dress will tear. So shall I! Oh hear my prayer. Just compare heart, beard, and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word, Sword and sward, retain and Britain. (Mind the latter, how it’s written.) Now I surely will not plague you With such words as plaque and ague. But be careful how you speak: Say break and steak, but bleak and streak; Cloven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe. Hear me say, devoid of trickery, Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore, Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles, Exiles, similes, and reviles; Scholar, vicar, and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far; One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel; Gertrude, German, wind and mind, Scene, Melpomene, mankind. Billet does not rhyme with ballet, Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Viscous, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward. And your pronunciation’s OK When you correctly say croquet, Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve, Friend and fiend, alive and live. Ivy, privy, famous; clamour And enamour rhyme with hammer. River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb, Doll and roll and some and home. Stranger does not rhyme with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Souls but foul, haunt but aunt, Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant, Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger, And then singer, ginger, linger, Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge, Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age. Query does not rhyme with very, Nor does fury sound like bury. Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth. Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath. Though the differences seem little, We say actual but victual. Refer does not rhyme with deafer. Fe0ffer does, and zephyr, heifer. Mint, pint, senate and sedate; Dull, bull, and George ate late. Scenic, Arabic, Pacific, Science, conscience, scientific. Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven. We say hallowed, but allowed, People, leopard, towed, but vowed. Mark the differences, moreover, Between mover, cover, clover; Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice; Camel, constable, unstable, Principle, disciple, label. Petal, panel, and canal, Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal. Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair, Senator, spectator, mayor. Tour, but our and succour, four. Gas, alas, and Arkansas. Sea, idea, Korea, area, Psalm, Maria, but malaria. Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean. Doctrine, turpentine, marine. Compare alien with Italian, Dandelion and battalion. Sally with ally, yea, ye, Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key. Say aver, but ever, fever, Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver. Heron, granary, canary. Crevice and device and aerie. Face, but preface, not efface. Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass. Large, but target, gin, give, verging, Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging. Ear, but earn and wear and tear Do not rhyme with here but ere. Seven is right, but so is even, Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen, Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk, Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work. Pronunciation (think of Psyche!) Is a paling stout and spikey? Won’t it make you lose your wits, Writing groats and saying grits? It’s a dark abyss or tunnel: Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale, Islington and Isle of Wight, Housewife, verdict and indict. Finally, which rhymes with enough, Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough? Hiccough has the sound of cup. My advice is to give up!!! English Pronunciation by G. Nolst Trenité

                                • EVERYTHING FRENCH IS BAD EXCEPT THE FOOD AND ARCHITECTURE

                                  A quote from Hans Hermann Hoppe:

                                  Hoppe also condemned the French revolution as belonging in “the same category of vile revolutions as the Bolshevik revolution and the Nazi revolution,” because the French revolution led to “Regicide, Egalitarianism, democracy, socialism, hatred of all religion, terror measures, mass plundering, rape and murder, military draft and the total, ideologically motivated War.”

                                  Let’s add to that a condemnation of French philosophers who twisted and then ruined the concept of English freedom by converting what had been a practical and empirical philosophy into an evangelical, ideological, verbally-empty absurdity which they used to justify taking power from and destroying both the monarchy and the catholic church — and by consequence they created the body of work that Marx would use to compose his irrational economic plague and pseudo-religion which in turn caused 160M deaths. Hitler is laughing in his grave. The Deutch Mark simply had to dress in Euro clothing in order to accomplish in only 20 years, profitably, and without firing a shot, what he had hoped to accomplish with his expensive purges and war. If you could to travel in time and kill only one religious philosopher in history at birth, it’s a tossup whether that should be Zoroaster, Abraham, Mohammed, Rousseau or Marx.