During the Age of Transformation (Karen Armstrong, Marijia Gimbutas) the military strategy the group used to resist or conquer out-groups determined, and set in mental stone: in myth, tradition, law, literature, norm and value, the consequential metaphysics (assumptions and values) of each civilization. And they survive to this day. In no small part because we have exercised the eugenic or dysgenic values in each of those eras, and to no small degree bred for adaptation to those strategies. Iranian, Egyptian, Chinese Armies in the river plains European warrior aristocracy and its militias. Steppe tribal raiders. Diasporic traders and wandering herdsmen, gypsies, and pirates. What we are apparently afraid to face, is that the long term de-civilizing consequences that have led to India and the muslim world, and africa, and now to south america can also be brought here to the upper lattitudes because of our use of fossil fuel heating and air conditioning. Demographic distributions matter more than excellences. No genius can reorganize a society of these imbalances without a return to either working class command economies, or it’s predecessor slavery. It’s simple math. They are too relatively unproductive to generate a concentration of wealth necessary for a voluntary organization of production (capitalism) to create marginal (decidable and influential) differences in reward necessary to form the various networks of hierarchies that as a collective can survive competition. Man was not oppressed by aristocracy. Man and Woman were domesticated, like every other feral animal, through a continuous process of eugenics that suppressed the lower class reproduction and redistributed reproduction upward, while at the same time increasing the scope of parasitic prohibitions that we call laws, and incrementally forcing everyone into productive activities in order to survive. We sent to war, hung, or starved the rest.
Theme: Ethnoculture
-
3) diversity without mandatory integration increases alienation. Increases lonel
3) diversity without mandatory integration increases alienation. Increases loneliness.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:08:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781767743477612544
Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
IN REPLY TO:
@JoshZumbrun
This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPlOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
-
I’m pretty clownish. It’s meant to be non-threatening potential between differen
I’m pretty clownish. It’s meant to be non-threatening potential between different peoples. And people in this part of the world people don’t think it’s really funny – because they’re so much more homogenous. Sort of like how Americans don’t think Jerry Lewis is funny but the French do. Clownish humor is a bit optimistic. Humor in this part of the world is a bit pessimistic – a subtle ‘black’ humor, very dependent on artful use of language. So it’s a combination of wit, nihilism, and is somehow related to exhibiting when sober, the kind of stupid one exhibits when drunk. So while it tends to be a bit ‘old fashioned’ from our western point of view (still in the parable, fairy tale, and agrarian context), it is actually more effete (educated), value laden, and artistically stated. And our American humor is by contrast, a bit ‘crude’.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 03:29:00 UTC
-
sorry. Misunderstood the question. MOST Catholics below hanjal line and were fro
sorry. Misunderstood the question. MOST Catholics below hanjal line and were from lower classes. But Germanic is Germanic.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 08:10:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781405775738638336
Reply addressees: @Ava1683
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425
IN REPLY TO:
@Glanceaustere
@curtdoolittle Liecehnstein, etc., where would they be in your trust system? Would they be between medium trust Catholic familism and
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781206720181735425
-
in the context of outgroups, yes. They use poly logical ethics
in the context of outgroups, yes. They use poly logical ethics.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 08:06:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781404757940432896
Reply addressees: @Ava1683
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781208051692941312
IN REPLY TO:
@Glanceaustere
@curtdoolittle And I think you put Jews under low trust? ANyway thanks for all your work
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781208051692941312
-
I’m sorry it bothers you that I’m not a racist – I don’t hate anybody really. We
I’m sorry it bothers you that I’m not a racist – I don’t hate anybody really. Well, I hate a person or two but they deserve it.
—racialist but not racist?–
I dunno. We all have families, tribes, nations and races that we are involuntary members of. We all have cultural and religious organizations we are involuntary members of – although we can work to alter them. We all have occupational organizations we are at least partly voluntary members of if an economy is good enough. We all have territorial membership that is often open to choice given willingness to pay the price.
—“According to the academic definition of racism at Stockholm University, you have to 1) recognize the existence of discrete sub-species within Sapiens Sapiens, and 2) place the races in a hierarchy of superior and inferior, to qualify as a racist. You don’t have to hate anybody.”—
I place the races in a hierarchy of the relatives scales of their lower classes, and the ability of the upper classes to create an advanced society. That is all. I might organize them also by rate and depth of sexual maturity or success at delaying such. These two factors are as scientific as we can be at present in determining the causal differences between populations in building complex advanced prosperous societies.
—“So you’re a textbook Stockholmian racist ;)”—
I don’t qualify for point 2, which is imprecisely stated, and could suggest that all members of a race are inferior or that different races have different numbers of inferiors because of historical climate and agrarian modes of production. I state only that westerners (whites) have achieved more than any other groups, at least three times, in the prehistorical, ancient, and modern worlds, by the use of what I call ‘testimonial’ (or martial) truth, combined with the political strategy of aristocratic egalitarianism (sovereignty). And as such we were successful at profiting from the rule of and the domestication of those we ruled – including ourselves.
Now it may be that westerners possess some uniquely superior traits, and I might suggest that’s true, but whether they are meaningful is something I am pretty much questioning. (appearance, aggression, balance of verbal and spatial IQ, and some strange ability to operate as a single pack more easily possibly just because we’re calmer).
Now let me flip it around, and say that groups of people, universally, demonstrate kin selection in democratic politics. It is what it is. It’s not a subject open to debate, the evidence is universal. Someone would have to be painfully ignorant or a liar to disagree with it.
So it’s DEMOCRACY that makes Race a problem. In monarchies there is no access to power, and so the market is the only method by which groups can compete for status.
Access to political power is what creates the problem of racism.
Race isn’t the problem. Democracy (access to non-market power) is the problem. It generates conflict which in turn generates demand for the state, which in turn generates tyranny.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-26 05:04:00 UTC
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-23 02:01:00 UTC
-
WHITES IN SPORTS (responding to: ) DISAGREE : We just frame the observation inco
http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/on-whites-and-fighting/ON WHITES IN SPORTS
(responding to:
http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/on-whites-and-fighting/
)
DISAGREE : We just frame the observation incorrectly.
1) White men excel (dominate in war) because of how we act in GROUPS of individuals. Even the legendary quote that one Spartan is the equal of any other warrior, but together they are unequalled. The reason we do excel is something that we are just beginning to understand, but it appears to be a)lower impulsivity/higher calm, b) cultural indoctrination into indo european heroism c) our ability to spatially model groups – or better yet, to operate as a pack – this last one I am trying to find more research on, d) militia training or experience from youth with the expectation of war, and lastly e) what appears to be an iq advantage in our professional warrior class.
2) The races can easily be stacked by degrees of sexual maturity – and degree of sexual maturity is second only to scale of class distributions in determining demonstrated racial differences. Asians lowest, whites second, black haired peoples third, and Africans highest. It is illogical to assume that we will not pay a price for our ‘domestication’. But we hold the ‘upper middle’ in both degree of sexual maturity, and balance of spatial vs verbal intellectual ability. The east Asians lack our verbal ability and they are by far the least sexually mature people (I have theories on that – since I’m pretty sure it’s selection of females that determines that trend, and greater immaturity was preferable(necessary) in the mongoloids than in the whites to create a similar behavior in male selection of females. All that interesting info said, Asians obtain longer life spans. Blacks obtain greater physical tolerance for damage, and require less nurture for shorter periods of time – both suitable for a low IQ population in a hostile environment. These small differences contribute significantly to the in-progress speciation of the races after we exterminated the previous human species. So blacks pay for their superior speed and strength far more so than we pay for our less superior speed and strength by gaining lower impulsivity, better organization, better use of weapons. (You don’t see that many black swordsmen either). So we have simple sports (basketball, weightlifting, and boxing) and we have complex sports (fencing, quarterbacking, and strategy games), and we are just not paying attention to how important the complex sports are in which we excel.
3) Competitive sport in the west was generally for fitness (among militia and soldiers) and gambling (among militia and soldiers), and most often between men of similar abilities. (even judicial duels had to be reasonably ‘fair’ matches. But this sport does not demonstrate how we do in war. Empirical evidence does. (Black logistics, white special-forces, and officers.) So our physical fitness was (like Swiss men today) a property of our ‘everyone fights for the franchise’ system of enfranchisement. So the purpose of such fighting was in-group improvement of the group, not testing against outgroups. So we are ‘testing’ for the wrong thing. We’re running an indifferent test of the lower castes and judging ourselves against a false measure. Put 100 white men with weapons aginst 100 of anyone else and that’s the difference in our abilities. I would counter that the problem is that cheap sports are physically advantageous and expensive sports with lots of equipment are expensive. In real terms football is analogous a bunch of underclass peasants protecting the king (quarterback). (Conversely we do the same thing when competing with Jews. If we ‘stuck together’ like they do we would end their ability to employ the female reproductive strategy against us: shame, rally, divide, conquer, and siphon resources.)
CLOSING
So I suggest we remember WHO AND WHAT WE ARE: Spartans, Romans, Germans, Vikings. And we need to f_uck the Athenians/Venetians/Spanish/French/English and their effeminate pretenses.
Rule or be ruled. We invented aristocratic egalitarianism: equality in sovereignty for those who fight.
Let’s get back into legions and fight.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-23 01:46:00 UTC
-
Ancient Group Strategies Writ Large
– FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. – BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means. – STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory. – RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. – DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost. – HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now). CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Ancient Group Strategies Writ Large
– FORESTLANDS: Aristocratic Ethics: What will someone not retaliate against even if we agree to it?(rulers/teleological ethics:outcomes) The ethics of warriors who must hold territory. This is a very high cost strategy because while professional warrior aristocracy is militarily superior, smaller numbers mean threats must be constantly suppressed when small, as soon as identified. – BORDERLANDS: Cosmopolitan(Jewish) Ethics: What will someone consent to Regardless of future resentment and retaliation? (borderland/subculture/deontological ethics:rules) The ethics of diasporic, migrating traders, or herding peoples who can prey upon the locals who hold territory. This is a very low cost (parasitic) ethics that avoids all contribution to the host commons, but requires preserving the ability to exit (migrate). It is the raider strategy by systemic and verbal rather than physical means. – STEPPELANDS: Russian(Orthodox) Ethics: What can I get away with now by negotiation and subterfuge, and hold by force later? (steppe raiders) The ethics of steppe people surrounded by competitors, always hostile and unpredictable. This is a difficult and expensive but only possible strategy, when one is surrounded by hostile opportunity seekers. While seemingly expansive, it’s actually a fearful one – aggression as the only possible means of controlling defensive positions across open territory. – RIVERLANDS: Chinese Ethics: What can I get away with now, but over time make impossible to change later? The ethics of long term ruling bureaucratic class. Sun Tzu strategy, and Confucian hyper familism. This is an exceptionally cost-effective strategy if one possesses a territorial resource (heartland), and can fortify that heartland. Riverlands strategy defends against Steppland and Desertland strategies. – DESERTLANDS: Muslim Ethics: (I am still working on this one because I don’t get that it’s causal, but opportunistic.) What can I justify now in order to make this minor advance now? And thereby accumulate wins by wearing down opponents over long periods. The ethics of opportunism. As far as I can tell islam is just an excuse for justifying opportunism. We can consider this the combination of religion and justifying opportunism – a long term very successful strategy becuase it’s very low cost. – HOSTILELANDS: African Ethics (pre-christian). Africa is akin to the Desertlands because of the sheer number of competitors, the hostility of the disease gradient, the plethora of wildlife, combined with the primitiveness of the available technologies. This is the only possible strategy until one or more core states can evolve, and create sufficient stability in some regions. (this is occurring now). CIVILIZATIONS NOT STATES It is a mistake (always), to consider conflicts within states over local power (capital allocation), as of the same consequence as conflicts between civilizations over borders. Because the former is a kinship conflict over priorities, while the latter is a genetic conflict over group evolutionary strategies. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute