As someone pointed out today, Duchesne’s observation, is that Aryanism (markets) have been impossible to export despite our long standing military superiority. They only work on europeans.
Why?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 19:35:00 UTC
As someone pointed out today, Duchesne’s observation, is that Aryanism (markets) have been impossible to export despite our long standing military superiority. They only work on europeans.
Why?
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 19:35:00 UTC
A CLAIM OF SUPERIORITY ISN’T NECESSARY FOR ETHNOCENTRISM
by Simon Ström
A claim of superiority is never necessary for making ethnocentrism a good strategy.
Since members of an ethnic group share vested interest in each other’s genes, their instincts are more aligned toward cooperation by default.
In concert with culture, fixed traits means we are designed to work together in a certain way by nature of our common recent origin, and there are even medical implications of miscegenation.
Within the context of macro-ethnicity (race, subrace, tribe), the formation of nations, tribes and countries should be subject to the market.
That is Aryanism: The formation of nations, tribes and countries should be subject to the market.
And remember Aryanism didn’t evolve beyond that scale.
Ancient Indo-Europeanization-by-conquest really only occurred within Europe, as IE migrations projecting onto densely populated Asian cultures didn’t have a great, or lasting, civilizational impact (Duchesne).
Moreover, the only people you should ‘hate’ are internal enemies (=ostracizing their behavior). The others, you just deal with them reciprocally. That’s the approach of agency.
– Simon Strom
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 17:52:00 UTC
QUARTERLY REMINDER.
Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy.
But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty.
I advocate nationalism, tribalism, and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence.
I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement.
I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement.
I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Reciprocity
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 17:02:00 UTC
(from elsewhere)
Actually, yes German is a guttural and ‘costly’ language to speak. All languages mature by the same means from the most guttural (semitic/arabic) to the less so (russian, ukrainian), to the less so, (german/polish/french), to the less so (italian, spanish). Each evolutionary step rotates more costly sounds for less costly sounds. So while german may be more advanced than Dutch, it is less advanced than english and far less than Italian. I would agree that German is probably the ‘best’ language on earth at present – un-hobbled as is english by the mixture of old german, old french, and old latin that is today’s English. And I would agree (aside from post-war self-hatred and loss of and appreciation for aristocracy) that german culture was and probably has been for the past millennium, the best culture on earth (because of the remnants of the ‘oath’). And yes, I would agree that there is a great difference between the age and pronunciation of a language and the content of ideas expressed in its vocabulary. And yes, I would agree that we can see the future of german language losing the guttural, and moving forward on the palate, in rapid casual speech. But at present, yes, its guttural, and sounds ‘primitive’ to those cultures that have lost the guttural.
I consider German the ‘best’ language, despite the, …, retention of primitive pronunciation. In part because of its use of compounds rather than adding new terms. In part because of its construction. In part because of its content. But must of all, because it’s METAPHYSICAL content: the patterns of assumptions and values in the vocabulary.
Unfortunately, german retains gendered nouns and grammar, as well as guttural pronunciation (Russian is far worse).
English degrades relatively gracefully, because it requires about 300 words to speak about almost anything, but one increases vocabulary for greater precision, not GRAMMAR. And the vocabulary is currently around 1M words. (the vast majority of which, I admit to knowing.) The spelling retention is partly to signal the reader which root language it’s from: German (farmer), French(ruler), Latin or Greek(intellectual).
I’ve seen most people struggle with the ‘precision’ of english. in particular the propositions. English is a high precision low context language, that is not fault tolerant. it is very good for law, logic, and software programming for that reason. (just as german is better for sentimental prose).
if we taught english with a little role-play, so that the spelling signaled which person (common-farmer, court-ruler, scholar-intellectual) was speaking and in which accent, it would probably help quite a bit.
Besides the enormous vocabulary, english is very sensitive to manners (graces) because of our hierarchical class history. So we have all sorts of polite speech that is required, where in german Bitte’ serves many purposes. One of the things I like about english is the signaling of status cues as a means of conveying one’s degree of culture. I find this frustrating in some other languages because I use those english subtleties and I can’t in other languages.
Anyway.
Between english, german, and italian you pretty much can get the best of all worlds. And despite my ancestry I find very little good to say about french other than it’s what happens when posturing and effeminate signaling develop into a substitute for merit in mind, body, and achievement.
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 08:50:00 UTC
Mis-stated question. Instead: When did american accents begin to develop? From the very beginning.
The american east coast was formed by four different groups of immigrants from different areas of Britain who already spoke with different accents. (To us they would all sound much more gaelic than british do today.) These groups spread in horizontal bands across the united states, and the cultural horizontal ‘bands’ in the country reflect the westward expansion of those early settlers, and how they carried their languages with them.
The intentional ‘middle atlantic’ accent was something you learned, just like received pronunciation in the UK until the underclass revolution of the 1960’s, the marxists, postmodernists, attempted to undermine all western aristocratic values.
Universities attempted to quash dialects for the competitive marketability of their students, and radio, then television assisted in the homogenization of the ‘Indiana’ pronunciation throughout most of the country exclusive of the lower classes. Most of this dramatic homogenization has come about since 1980.
Our accents may not sound as distinct to others as do those of different regions of the UK, particularly in the underclasses. But in the states, your vocabulary, body language, and pronunciation are your primary forms of status signaling, and we can tell, most of the time, at least which region if not which state or city each of us is from.
The most interesting property of american pronunciation is probably the least discussed, and least well known, which is that the majority of white americans are of germanic rather than anglo extraction. And so the american speech pattern inherited german monotonality rather than british and gaelic tonal accents.
So Americans speak the vocabulary and grammar of the english language with rather dry german pronunciation so to speak. If you hear English in the Gaelic or the Old English, it’s more melodic. There is a tempo to it. It’s more expressive.
When I teach people from melodic backgrounds how to speak english (particularly Indians), I tell them to practice: speak like a robot-voice in the same tone, deep in your chest, with continuous air, and beat your chest every syllable at a constant rate – and while it sounds silly, this technique will teach you the proper pace of english speech.
If you look at this map, you’ll see the westward migration of the dialects as we spread westward.

( PS: As an aside, the actor who Portrays John Adams was chosen, as is common in Hollywood representation of the Founders, as a means of insulting the great man. He had more in common with a Field Marshal than he did that wimpy little fellow. Founders were tough, hardened, empirical people. On a scale we cannot imagine today, because no one like them exists today. )
https://www.quora.com/What-did-Americans-sound-like-in-the-late-18th-and-early-19th-centuries-and-when-did-the-recognizable-General-American-accent-come-into-being-Did-Americans-sound-British-in-the-1700’s-and-1800’s-If-not-what-did-Americans-sound-like
—“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?— (choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.) I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare. Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order. Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race. And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups. So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand. The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.
—“CURT: DO YOU BELIEVE IN/SUPPORT RACIALISM?— (choice quotes here) (I view this, and all racial questions, as stupid but here is my answer.) I don’t know what that means. I advocate truth is more competitively advantageous than falsehood. In the case of race, people everywhere at all times demonstrate kin selection (except at the margins). In polities, under monarchy, this was not a problem, since one group possessed political power and the state could not be used as a proxy for warfare. Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order. Now as far as differences between the Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families. And As to differences between the Classes, and between the Generations, and as to differences between the Genders, all of these differences exist, and they exist because we demonstrate both attempts to cooperate and attempts to complete or engage in conflict. at every level from gender, to generation, to class, to tribe, to subrace, to race. And while at small interpersonal scale we can reconcile these differnces in the absence of political orders, when we act as groups in family, clan, tribe, nation, subrace, and race, in norms, laws, institutions, traditions, and myths, we ally with our kin – our group. Those who do not (Antifa) are those who are outcast by their own group, and seek other groups. So what we see is two axis of organization and resistance: the classes vs the races, and corporatism vs tribalism. And we see the middle classes and working and laboring classes seeking homogeneity, the underclasses seeking whatever is to their advantage at the time, and the upper classes siezing power by whichever faction is able to exert the most pressure in the political model at hand. The disenfranchised seek the opposite of whatever order is in play.
FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS (read it and weep) ***Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.***
FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS (read it and weep) ***Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies. In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history. It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without. So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.***
FULL ACCOUNTING OF POLITICAL ORDERS
(read it and weep)
***Democracy and diversity restored levantine and semitic tribal conflict to european high trust homogenous societies.
In creating a high trust competitive polity with a high standard of living, it appears that constructing a kinship order rather than a corporate order, is superior during the majority of history.
It appears that corporate orders are means of merely extracting accumulated capital from homogenous peoples, and the emergence of a corporate order is evidence of predation or parasitism within or from without.
So as far as I know, it is not possible to survive a test of full accounting under a corporate order, and it is only possible to survive at test of full accounting under a kinship order.***
Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 09:24:00 UTC