Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • NO, THE IDENTITY CATHOLIC WAS USED FROM THE BEGINNING. “Catholic” comes from the

    NO, THE IDENTITY CATHOLIC WAS USED FROM THE BEGINNING.
    “Catholic” comes from the Greek “katholikos,” meaning “universal” or “according to the whole.”

    The term emerged in a period when the Christian Church was defining its beliefs and practices. The earliest known use of the term in a Christian context is found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, around 110 AD. He used it to describe the universal church. It implied a church that was universal and inclusive, encompassing all believers.

    Over time, “Catholic” evolved from describing the universal character of the Church to denoting a particular tradition within Christianity. Early Church Fathers like Augustine contributed to its evolving meaning.

    By the 4th century, with the legalization of Christianity under Emperor Constantine and subsequent councils like Nicaea (325 AD), the term began to take on a more formalized meaning. It was used in official documents to describe the orthodox Christian Church.

    Distinction from Other Groups”Catholic” became a term of differentiation, especially as theological disputes led to the distinction between orthodox and heretical groups.

    The Great Schism of 1054 and then the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century further defined “Catholic” in contrast to the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches.

    Cheers
    -CD

    Reply addressees: @DokicNathanial @athalkunni @Gundissemenator

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 01:28:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749604955202125824

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749600852145525202

  • FEMININE ORIGINS AND CAUSE OF LEFTIST REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE (*Marcuse) Why isn’t

    FEMININE ORIGINS AND CAUSE OF LEFTIST REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE
    (*Marcuse)
    Why isn’t ‘repressive tolerance’ just a form of deception by false framing, to claim it’s democracy they are advocating for rather than the suppression of meritocracy in order to create forced equality through seizure of power to impose authoritarian government?

    It is.

    (Now, compare these with female (feminine) intuition whether in a male or female body:)

    1. Labeling certain speech or ideologies as ‘repressive’ under the banner of tolerance could be a form of intellectual deception. This approach could falsely frame political agendas as democratic efforts while they may have underlying authoritarian intentions.

    2. ‘Repressive tolerance’ might be used to undermine meritocratic systems. By labeling certain merit-based outcomes as products of oppressive structures, it could lead to the devaluation of merit in favor of ideological conformity.

    3. ‘Repressive tolerance’ is as a step towards enforced equality, where diversity of thought is sacrificed for uniformity. This uniformity, enforced through supposedly tolerant policies, could pave the way for authoritarian governance structures.

    4. Leftist ideologies often view all forms of authority and influence as inherently unearned, negating the possibility of legitimate authority derived from merit and competence.

    5. The importance of recognizing merit and competency in establishing authority challenges the notion that existing power structures are solely the result of privilege or oppression, presenting evidence of meritocratic processes at work.

    6. The claim that advocacy for traditionally marginalized groups often overlooks the need for demonstrated competency. It would also explore the tension between ensuring equal opportunities and the pursuit of equal outcomes.

    In effect the Female > Feminine > Left Behavior consists of nothing more than using deception, false victimhood, false accusation, in order to bypass earning and exchange to obtain what they desire. The female > feminine > leftist nature like the left nature is purely criminal. (Which is… odd. Though the ancient world would have considered it obvious.)

    WHY: THEY CANNOT COMPETE BY MERIT.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 01:20:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749603031644004352

  • I agree that barret followed teh letter of the constitution. But she is not as w

    I agree that barret followed teh letter of the constitution. But she is not as willing to demand clarification or narrow the ruling as are the others who are more concerned about both reversing the expansion of federal discretionary power decreasing the responsibility of the legislature, and forcing return of decisions to the people and the legislatures.
    So she made the correct SIMPLE call, but did not fulfill the court’s mission via Scalia to prevent evasion of legislative responsibilty, legislation from the bench, or by executive command, or executive failure to execute.
    I will read position if she posted one, her but I assume that I’m correct in my understanding of her decision. THe court is adamant that given the decline in the trust in our institutions to the degree where we are close to civil war.
    Given that every illegal is an theft of capital from existing populations and that the purpose of that tolerance of illegal immigration is to capture votes to undermine the constitution it isn’t difficult to make the case which is why it was a close vote. Unfortunately Barrett’s position is demanding the congress make the decision (correct) without using the court to actively force the congress to make the decision. So I expect we will see escalation to the point of civil war continue.

    Reply addressees: @TheMelWestbrook @steve_vladeck

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 00:50:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749595475047596032

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749592526993174995

  • I live to serve. 😉

    I live to serve. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 00:33:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749591124786684195

    Reply addressees: @realJohnVictor

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749590506047169006

  • AN ENEMY TACTIC: INTELLECTUAL REPRESSION, (‘Repressive Intolerance’) The organiz

    AN ENEMY TACTIC: INTELLECTUAL REPRESSION, (‘Repressive Intolerance’)
    The organized prevention of discussing a topic, which involve concepts like thought control and censorship.

    Here are a few:

    Prior Restraint: In legal terms, this refers to governmental suppression of material… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1749582588845367343

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 00:28:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749589943226134805

  • Brilliant expansion and clarification of the concepts

    Brilliant expansion and clarification of the concepts.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 00:22:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749588337432698960

    Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749504182816567408

  • Barrett flipped. NOT OK

    Barrett flipped. NOT OK.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 00:15:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749586531617018332

    Reply addressees: @steve_vladeck

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749521408592322596

  • ANOTHER OF THE ENEMY’S TECHNIQUES OF DECEIT (Additional methods requested from t

    ANOTHER OF THE ENEMY’S TECHNIQUES OF DECEIT
    (Additional methods requested from the readers)
    From the “If you can name a thing you can destroy a thing.”

    SUBHEADING VIII. SOCIAL SEDITION (Capital Destruction)
    1. Erasing: :Mnemolysis”: Anti-Mnemonic: Etymology of Mnemonic:… https://twitter.com/WerrellBradley/status/1749578275524059328

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-22 23:59:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749582588845367343

  • If there is capital they take it or destroy it

    If there is capital they take it or destroy it.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-22 23:50:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749580209311920480

    Reply addressees: @WerrellBradley @grok

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749578275524059328

  • Masculinity had nothing to do with he church in the middle ages and everything t

    Masculinity had nothing to do with he church in the middle ages and everything to do with the need for self defense, relative lawlessness, and the opportunism of military service as the only means of gaining additional wealth despite the risk. Christianity is and always has been…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-22 22:10:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749555182193569963

    Reply addressees: @Gundissemenator @DokicNathanial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749554514514846124