Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43717966_10156700531312264_581626199

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43717966_10156700531312264_581626199

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43717966_10156700531312264_5816261990896631808_n_10156700531302264.jpg Collin Sleuth KnightGood times.Oct 11, 2018, 7:57 PMGiego CaleiroSays a dark enlightenment advocate :pOct 11, 2018, 8:57 PMCurt Doolittleah. well. Reaction against marxism/postmodernism/feminism is the the same as restoring abrahamic superstition. It’s a continuation of ending the abrahamic deceits.Oct 12, 2018, 4:29 AMJoe FossDidn’t we call them dark ages because we lacked some archeological and historical documents but have started filling the blanks in in recent decades?

    As far as I know, the church has done a lot to preserve and even advance a lot of the knowledge from the classical period until the Renaissance.Oct 12, 2018, 8:13 AMCurt Doolittleread wikipedia

    Petrarch

    —“The idea of a Dark Age originated with the Tuscan scholar Petrarch in the 1330s.[14][12] Writing of the past, he said: “Amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius; no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom”.[15] Christian writers, including Petrarch himself,[14] had long used traditional metaphors of ‘light versus darkness’ to describe ‘good versus evil’. Petrarch was the first to give the metaphor secular meaning by reversing its application. He now saw Classical Antiquity, so long considered a ‘dark’ age for its lack of Christianity, in the ‘light’ of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch’s own time, allegedly lacking such cultural achievements, was seen as the age of darkness.[14]

    From his perspective on the Italian peninsula, Petrarch saw the Roman and classical period as an expression of greatness.[14] He spent much of his time travelling through Europe, rediscovering and republishing classic Latin and Greek texts. He wanted to restore the Latin language to its former purity. Renaissance humanists saw the preceding 900 years as a time of stagnation, with history unfolding not along the religious outline of Saint Augustine’s Six Ages of the World, but in cultural (or secular) terms through progressive development of classical ideals, literature, and art.

    Petrarch wrote that history had two periods: the classic period of Greeks and Romans, followed by a time of darkness in which he saw himself living. In around 1343, in the conclusion of his epic Africa, he wrote: “My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. This sleep of forgetfulness will not last forever. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance.”[16] In the 15th century, historians Leonardo Bruni and Flavio Biondo developed a three-tier outline of history. They used Petrarch’s two ages, plus a modern, ‘better age’, which they believed the world had entered. Later the term ‘Middle Ages’ – Latin media tempestas (1469) or medium aevum (1604) – was used to describe the period of supposed decline.[17]”—Oct 12, 2018, 9:14 AMJoe FossWouldn’t it have more to do with the collapse of the Roman Empire and barbarian invasions and less with religion running the world? Seems rash to attribute something so complex to a single root cause which might as well been tangentialOct 12, 2018, 9:20 AMJonathon PattersonThe biggest brained take.Oct 12, 2018, 9:23 AMCurt Doolittlereligion suppresses thought everywhere and at all times.Oct 12, 2018, 9:32 AMJoe FossI’m inclined to agree. Not a religious person myself, but I find atheists all too often up there with vegans in the “annoying cunts” category so I guess I soured on the entire groupOct 12, 2018, 10:07 AMMurphy CellDark ages never actually happened.Oct 12, 2018, 10:15 AMMurphy Cellhttp://blogs.bu.edu/core/2016/10/31/from-history-6-reasons-the-dark-ages-werent-so-dark/Oct 12, 2018, 10:18 AMPatrick HabetsYeah…. “Dark”…. Wow…

    Fortunately the enlightenment brought us ultimately “the good stuff”: like usury, materialism, libertarianism ending up in the glorious era of post-modernism.

    https://youtu.be/W4p7A0EtZqgOct 12, 2018, 11:26 AMPatrick HabetsIndirectly related, however perhaps clarifing to the above mentioned;

    https://youtu.be/yTiztUNrhhMOct 12, 2018, 11:35 AMBrett StevensCurt Doolittle Wikipedia is Red propagandaOct 12, 2018, 4:13 PMAyham NedalLol the Middle Ages weren’t dark.

    I’d advise you to read a little about the Islamic Golden Age and the Carolingian Renaissance.Oct 12, 2018, 5:12 PMRichard NikoleyNOOOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.Oct 12, 2018, 5:22 PMBreaker MorantThe dark ages probably wasn’t as bad as the crises leading to the RenaissanceOct 12, 2018, 5:44 PMCorey OvertonActually the churches and monasteries kept a good bit of essential knowledge alive during the dark ages.Oct 12, 2018, 5:44 PMCurt Doolittlewell, anything that CAN be red propaganda is. that doesn’t mean ALL of it is. ;)Oct 12, 2018, 6:43 PMChris WojtowiczAre the secular powers who pull the strings today really all that better at running the show? The 20th century was the bloodiest ever—largely due to secular conflicts. Nihilism and despair reign. Men everywhere fall into vice. Anything outside strict incontrovertible science is “just your opinion, man” and so the masses have forgotten everything about human nature. Give me back these “Dark Ages!”Oct 12, 2018, 11:45 PMDaniel Roland AndersonCurt Doolittle

    And it’s not like you can’t check the citations, eh?

    People are funny.Oct 13, 2018, 1:06 AMPatrick HabetsRichard Nikoley that’s deep! 👌Oct 13, 2018, 9:52 AMPatrick HabetsIt’s called “dark” for just one reason: labor was higher valued then usury. Furthermore the papal doctrine of the Byzantine dogma of “sicut judaeis non” prevented the manipulation of medieval (mainly Benedictine monastery) principalities. The Renaissance was Kick-started by usury, financed by Venetian moneylenders to the (shabbos goy?) De Medici in Florence. It’s that simple!

    In regard of the above mentioned the following hypothesis is perhaps interesting in the light of Ceasar’s true motivation of the Rubicon crossing…

    Keep in mind western society is structured upon “Roman” WRITTEN (Sic!) LAW…….

    https://youtu.be/FPfuFM-e8QQOct 13, 2018, 10:03 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-11 19:55:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43717966_10156700531312264_581626199

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43717966_10156700531312264_581626199

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/43717966_10156700531312264_5816261990896631808_n_10156700531302264.jpg Collin Sleuth KnightGood times.Oct 11, 2018, 7:57 PMGiego CaleiroSays a dark enlightenment advocate :pOct 11, 2018, 8:57 PMCurt Doolittleah. well. Reaction against marxism/postmodernism/feminism is the the same as restoring abrahamic superstition. It’s a continuation of ending the abrahamic deceits.Oct 12, 2018, 4:29 AMJoe FossDidn’t we call them dark ages because we lacked some archeological and historical documents but have started filling the blanks in in recent decades?

    As far as I know, the church has done a lot to preserve and even advance a lot of the knowledge from the classical period until the Renaissance.Oct 12, 2018, 8:13 AMCurt Doolittleread wikipedia

    Petrarch

    —“The idea of a Dark Age originated with the Tuscan scholar Petrarch in the 1330s.[14][12] Writing of the past, he said: “Amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius; no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom”.[15] Christian writers, including Petrarch himself,[14] had long used traditional metaphors of ‘light versus darkness’ to describe ‘good versus evil’. Petrarch was the first to give the metaphor secular meaning by reversing its application. He now saw Classical Antiquity, so long considered a ‘dark’ age for its lack of Christianity, in the ‘light’ of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch’s own time, allegedly lacking such cultural achievements, was seen as the age of darkness.[14]

    From his perspective on the Italian peninsula, Petrarch saw the Roman and classical period as an expression of greatness.[14] He spent much of his time travelling through Europe, rediscovering and republishing classic Latin and Greek texts. He wanted to restore the Latin language to its former purity. Renaissance humanists saw the preceding 900 years as a time of stagnation, with history unfolding not along the religious outline of Saint Augustine’s Six Ages of the World, but in cultural (or secular) terms through progressive development of classical ideals, literature, and art.

    Petrarch wrote that history had two periods: the classic period of Greeks and Romans, followed by a time of darkness in which he saw himself living. In around 1343, in the conclusion of his epic Africa, he wrote: “My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. This sleep of forgetfulness will not last forever. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance.”[16] In the 15th century, historians Leonardo Bruni and Flavio Biondo developed a three-tier outline of history. They used Petrarch’s two ages, plus a modern, ‘better age’, which they believed the world had entered. Later the term ‘Middle Ages’ – Latin media tempestas (1469) or medium aevum (1604) – was used to describe the period of supposed decline.[17]”—Oct 12, 2018, 9:14 AMJoe FossWouldn’t it have more to do with the collapse of the Roman Empire and barbarian invasions and less with religion running the world? Seems rash to attribute something so complex to a single root cause which might as well been tangentialOct 12, 2018, 9:20 AMJonathon PattersonThe biggest brained take.Oct 12, 2018, 9:23 AMCurt Doolittlereligion suppresses thought everywhere and at all times.Oct 12, 2018, 9:32 AMJoe FossI’m inclined to agree. Not a religious person myself, but I find atheists all too often up there with vegans in the “annoying cunts” category so I guess I soured on the entire groupOct 12, 2018, 10:07 AMMurphy CellDark ages never actually happened.Oct 12, 2018, 10:15 AMMurphy Cellhttp://blogs.bu.edu/core/2016/10/31/from-history-6-reasons-the-dark-ages-werent-so-dark/Oct 12, 2018, 10:18 AMPatrick HabetsYeah…. “Dark”…. Wow…

    Fortunately the enlightenment brought us ultimately “the good stuff”: like usury, materialism, libertarianism ending up in the glorious era of post-modernism.

    https://youtu.be/W4p7A0EtZqgOct 12, 2018, 11:26 AMPatrick HabetsIndirectly related, however perhaps clarifing to the above mentioned;

    https://youtu.be/yTiztUNrhhMOct 12, 2018, 11:35 AMBrett StevensCurt Doolittle Wikipedia is Red propagandaOct 12, 2018, 4:13 PMKevin WuAll eras have had religion, and all future eras will too.Oct 12, 2018, 4:51 PMCurt Doolittlewe have one now: marxism-postmodernism-social democracyOct 12, 2018, 4:56 PMKevin WuBingo.Oct 12, 2018, 4:57 PMAyham NedalLol the Middle Ages weren’t dark.

    I’d advise you to read a little about the Islamic Golden Age and the Carolingian Renaissance.Oct 12, 2018, 5:12 PMRichard NikoleyNOOOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.Oct 12, 2018, 5:22 PMJosey WalesThe dark ages probably wasn’t as bad as the crises leading to the RenaissanceOct 12, 2018, 5:44 PMCorey OvertonActually the churches and monasteries kept a good bit of essential knowledge alive during the dark ages.Oct 12, 2018, 5:44 PMCurt Doolittlewell, anything that CAN be red propaganda is. that doesn’t mean ALL of it is. ;)Oct 12, 2018, 6:43 PMChris WojtowiczAre the secular powers who pull the strings today really all that better at running the show? The 20th century was the bloodiest ever—largely due to secular conflicts. Nihilism and despair reign. Men everywhere fall into vice. Anything outside strict incontrovertible science is “just your opinion, man” and so the masses have forgotten everything about human nature. Give me back these “Dark Ages!”Oct 12, 2018, 11:45 PMDaniel Roland AndersonCurt Doolittle

    And it’s not like you can’t check the citations, eh?

    People are funny.Oct 13, 2018, 1:06 AMPatrick HabetsRichard Nikoley that’s deep! 👌Oct 13, 2018, 9:52 AMPatrick HabetsIt’s called “dark” for just one reason: labor was higher valued then usury. Furthermore the papal doctrine of the Byzantine dogma of “sicut judaeis non” prevented the manipulation of medieval (mainly Benedictine monastery) principalities. The Renaissance was Kick-started by usury, financed by Venetian moneylenders to the (shabbos goy?) De Medici in Florence. It’s that simple!

    In regard of the above mentioned the following hypothesis is perhaps interesting in the light of Ceasar’s true motivation of the Rubicon crossing…

    Keep in mind western society is structured upon “Roman” WRITTEN (Sic!) LAW…….

    https://youtu.be/FPfuFM-e8QQOct 13, 2018, 10:03 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-11 19:55:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/43717966_10156700531312264_58162619

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/43717966_10156700531312264_58162619

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/43717966_10156700531312264_5816261990896631808_n_10156700531302264.jpg Collin Sleuth KnightGood times.Oct 11, 2018 7:57pmGiego CaleiroSays a dark enlightenment advocate :pOct 11, 2018 8:57pmCurt Doolittleah. well. Reaction against marxism/postmodernism/feminism is the the same as restoring abrahamic superstition. It’s a continuation of ending the abrahamic deceits.Oct 12, 2018 4:29amJoe FossDidn’t we call them dark ages because we lacked some archeological and historical documents but have started filling the blanks in in recent decades?

    As far as I know, the church has done a lot to preserve and even advance a lot of the knowledge from the classical period until the Renaissance.Oct 12, 2018 8:13amCurt Doolittleread wikipedia

    Petrarch

    —“The idea of a Dark Age originated with the Tuscan scholar Petrarch in the 1330s.[14][12] Writing of the past, he said: “Amidst the errors there shone forth men of genius; no less keen were their eyes, although they were surrounded by darkness and dense gloom”.[15] Christian writers, including Petrarch himself,[14] had long used traditional metaphors of ‘light versus darkness’ to describe ‘good versus evil’. Petrarch was the first to give the metaphor secular meaning by reversing its application. He now saw Classical Antiquity, so long considered a ‘dark’ age for its lack of Christianity, in the ‘light’ of its cultural achievements, while Petrarch’s own time, allegedly lacking such cultural achievements, was seen as the age of darkness.[14]

    From his perspective on the Italian peninsula, Petrarch saw the Roman and classical period as an expression of greatness.[14] He spent much of his time travelling through Europe, rediscovering and republishing classic Latin and Greek texts. He wanted to restore the Latin language to its former purity. Renaissance humanists saw the preceding 900 years as a time of stagnation, with history unfolding not along the religious outline of Saint Augustine’s Six Ages of the World, but in cultural (or secular) terms through progressive development of classical ideals, literature, and art.

    Petrarch wrote that history had two periods: the classic period of Greeks and Romans, followed by a time of darkness in which he saw himself living. In around 1343, in the conclusion of his epic Africa, he wrote: “My fate is to live among varied and confusing storms. But for you perhaps, if as I hope and wish you will live long after me, there will follow a better age. This sleep of forgetfulness will not last forever. When the darkness has been dispersed, our descendants can come again in the former pure radiance.”[16] In the 15th century, historians Leonardo Bruni and Flavio Biondo developed a three-tier outline of history. They used Petrarch’s two ages, plus a modern, ‘better age’, which they believed the world had entered. Later the term ‘Middle Ages’ – Latin media tempestas (1469) or medium aevum (1604) – was used to describe the period of supposed decline.[17]”—Oct 12, 2018 9:14amJoe FossWouldn’t it have more to do with the collapse of the Roman Empire and barbarian invasions and less with religion running the world? Seems rash to attribute something so complex to a single root cause which might as well been tangentialOct 12, 2018 9:20amJonathon PattersonThe biggest brained take.Oct 12, 2018 9:23amCurt Doolittlereligion suppresses thought everywhere and at all times.Oct 12, 2018 9:32amJoe FossI’m inclined to agree. Not a religious person myself, but I find atheists all too often up there with vegans in the “annoying cunts” category so I guess I soured on the entire groupOct 12, 2018 10:07amMurphy CellDark ages never actually happened.Oct 12, 2018 10:15amMurphy Cellhttp://blogs.bu.edu/core/2016/10/31/from-history-6-reasons-the-dark-ages-werent-so-dark/Oct 12, 2018 10:18amPatrick HabetsYeah…. “Dark”…. Wow…

    Fortunately the enlightenment brought us ultimately “the good stuff”: like usury, materialism, libertarianism ending up in the glorious era of post-modernism.

    https://youtu.be/W4p7A0EtZqgOct 12, 2018 11:26amPatrick HabetsIndirectly related, however perhaps clarifing to the above mentioned;

    https://youtu.be/yTiztUNrhhMOct 12, 2018 11:35amRyan PétrequinPolitics is a religious phenomenon.Oct 12, 2018 11:44amBrett Stevens@[741197263:2048:Curt Doolittle] Wikipedia is Red propagandaOct 12, 2018 4:13pmKevin WuAll eras have had religion, and all future eras will too.Oct 12, 2018 4:51pmCurt Doolittlewe have one now: marxism-postmodernism-social democracyOct 12, 2018 4:56pmKevin WuBingo.Oct 12, 2018 4:57pmAyham NedalLol the Middle Ages weren’t dark.

    I’d advise you to read a little about the Islamic Golden Age and the Carolingian Renaissance.Oct 12, 2018 5:12pmRichard NikoleyNOOOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.Oct 12, 2018 5:22pmJosey WalesThe dark ages probably wasn’t as bad as the crises leading to the RenaissanceOct 12, 2018 5:44pmCorey OvertonActually the churches and monasteries kept a good bit of essential knowledge alive during the dark ages.Oct 12, 2018 5:44pmCurt Doolittlewell, anything that CAN be red propaganda is. that doesn’t mean ALL of it is. ;)Oct 12, 2018 6:43pmChris WojtowiczAre the secular powers who pull the strings today really all that better at running the show? The 20th century was the bloodiest ever—largely due to secular conflicts. Nihilism and despair reign. Men everywhere fall into vice. Anything outside strict incontrovertible science is “just your opinion, man” and so the masses have forgotten everything about human nature. Give me back these “Dark Ages!”Oct 12, 2018 11:45pmDaniel Roland Anderson@[741197263:2048:Curt Doolittle]

    And it’s not like you can’t check the citations, eh?

    People are funny.Oct 13, 2018 1:06amPatrick Habets@[100009672279790:2048:Richard Nikoley] that’s deep! 👌Oct 13, 2018 9:52amPatrick HabetsIt’s called “dark” for just one reason: labor was higher valued then usury. Furthermore the papal doctrine of the Byzantine dogma of “sicut judaeis non” prevented the manipulation of medieval (mainly Benedictine monastery) principalities. The Renaissance was Kick-started by usury, financed by Venetian moneylenders to the (shabbos goy?) De Medici in Florence. It’s that simple!

    In regard of the above mentioned the following hypothesis is perhaps interesting in the light of Ceasar’s true motivation of the Rubicon crossing…

    Keep in mind western society is structured upon “Roman” WRITTEN (Sic!) LAW…….

    https://youtu.be/FPfuFM-e8QQOct 13, 2018 10:03am

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-11 19:55:00 UTC

  • You Were Deprived of Education Purposefully

    October 11th, 2018 6:43 AM

    —“While I might understand what he says it makes me realize how under educated I am and how much more I need to learn.”— Vinny Vidivicci

    [J]ust one note. (a) You were deprived of education purposefully, to make you ignorant, and pliable for the authoritarian ‘Self Anointed’ left. (b) We learned a great deal from the experiments of the 20th century and only now are synthesizing our understanding of it. (c) That understanding is contentious because between women and immigrants we are the minority trying to preserve empirical, nomocratic (rule of law), market, meritocratic civilization. (d) In a division of perception, cognition, memory, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, some of us can specialize in ‘synthesis’ so that others can ‘consume’ our intellectual product. I have a gift, and have been successful enough in business to devote the vast majority of my time to this effort – so you don’t have to. Just as whatever you do, means I don’t have to do it. And this is why ‘nomocratic, market, meritocratic’ civilization works to provide such disproportionate returns – as long as we are truthful, dutiful, and reciprocal with one another. -hugs brother.

  • Quoted in the Post

    Quoted in the Post

    October 11th, 2018 6:26 PM

    —“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– John Mark

    Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 10.19.19 AM

    https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/wheres-the-outrage-over-hillarys-call-for-a-civil-war/ CONTENT HERE: Two events from the last two days stand out. The first came Monday night with President Trump’s forceful yet compassionate speech at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The president opened with an extraordinary apology on behalf of the country to Kav­anaugh and his family“for the terrible pain and suffering” they endured during the historically brutal confirmation process. He said the unfounded allegations violated fairness and “the presumption of innocence.” Trump also tenderly addressed Kavanaugh’s young daughters, telling them “your father is a great man, a man of decency, character, kindness and courage.” The event was something of a spike-the-football moment in front of a cheering White House audience and as such was a clever piece of stagecraft, where Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins were saluted. But the ceremony was much more than mere boosterism. With the eight other Supremes sitting in the front row, Trump aimed to restore dignity to the judiciary at a time when the dirtiest tricks of politics have buried the court in a mountain of mud. The president is right to worry that the character-assassination attempt on Kavanaughmay turn out to be a seminal moment in American political and cultural history. The ideas that the court is just another political branch and that the presumption of innocence no longer applies if you are on the other team represent a seismic shift in how we look at each other and the nation as a whole. If those ideas stick, we are in more trouble than we can imagine. And while Trump has at times unnecessarily contributed to the rancor, he was terrific Monday in trying to repair what Senate Democrats and their media handmaidens tried to destroy. Which brings me to the second event of note: Hillary Clinton’s statement Tuesday that Democrats “cannot be civil” as long as Republicans hold the White House and Congress. “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.” There you have it — a declaration of war and a license for violence. Where is the media outrage? Clinton knows we are already in the danger zone when it comes to the political temperature. Her comments, then, are as reckless as bringing a can of gasoline to a bonfire. She’s stoking trouble to gain a foothold in the 2020 race — and damn the consequences. Her claim that civility can return when Dems have power is an admission that the ends justify the means. Then again, she never fails to disappoint. As I wrote Sunday, she has spent the last two years casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency because the election didn’t go her way. That makes her guilty of the very thing she found “horrifying” when Trump suggested he might not abide by the results if he thought they were rigged. “He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position,” she said in their final debate, in October 2016. She added, “That is not the way our democracy works.” But it does work exactly that way when Democrats are denied what they feel entitled to. They should be careful what they wish for. For if the Kavanaugh experience revealed anything, it is that Trump’s GOP knows how to fight back and win. It is hard to imagine that Kavanaugh would have survived such an onslaught under any other ­recent Republican candidate or president. There were so many reasons, and so much media pressure, that it would not have been surprising if a bloc of senators called the allegations a “distraction” and waved a white flag. They didn’t because Trump and Kavanaugh didn’t back down. Still, there is danger when two sides both think they can outlast the other. Responding to my concern that America might be sleepwalking into a second civil war, a number of readers agreed. Some said they welcomed it. Curt Doolittle wrote this: “We aren’t sleepwalking into it, we know exactly what we’re doing and why. The hard right and hard left are planning on it, ready for it, and looking for an opportunity.” He said the pressure has been building and that “the only reason it hasn’t turned hot is the outlier of Trump’s election. If Clinton had won, we’d already be there.”

    City Hall in the X-treme

    The City Hall press release was overflowing with superlatives. The action was “historic,” a “landmark” and “groundbreaking.” Did Mayor Putz find a cure for homelessness? Did he solve the problem of failing schools? Did he fix public housing or the subways? Nah, the small stuff is beneath him. His “stop the presses” accomplishment was signing legislation putting a third gender on city birth certificates. As his office described it, “In addition to the ‘male’ and ‘female’ designations, birth certificates will also show an ‘X,’ allowing gender non-binary people who identify neither as men nor women to have a birth certificate that more accurately reflects their identities.” The law takes effect Jan. 1 and removes the requirement that a medical or mental health professional affirm an individual’s gender to change the certificate. The effect is that anyone can simply demand a new birth certificate and choose a new gender. It’s not clear if there are age requirements or limits to the number of times an individual can make changes. To the roster of activist groups hailing the action, the change is something of a Holy Grail. First lady Chirlane McCray suggested it was just a first step, saying, “We will not stop there — we strive to extend that dignity to every aspect of life.” I don’t doubt that gender identity is a serious, complex issue for some people. But I do wonder about the impact of this dramatic change on society, including gender roles in everything from sports to toilets, and about the priorities of the mayor and City Council. Do they have the same passion for public safety and good schools? Do they care as much about the unfairness of the tax system? My fear is that they don’t, and that their intensity about narrow issues is a fig leaf hiding their surrender on broad ones. There are superlatives for that, too. Disgraceful, cowardice and shameful come to mind.

  • Which set of values do you more viscerally identify with that the other?

    October 11th, 2018 6:29 PM by Richard Nikoley

    The problem here is that it’s crucially important what values you’re acting (or fighting, or kicking teeth) FOR. There is no virtue in combat for the sake of combat. That’s for Fight Club and everyone knows what the first rule of Fight Club is. So, everyone fights. Everyone has a degree of blood lust. Everyone wants to kick in the teeth, bash heads and… “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.” — H. L. Mencken But for what? Let’s be somewhat explicit in dialectic fashion: thesis —> Antithesis —> Synthesis. REPUBLICAN THESIS (loosely, not all-inclusive) – Traditional American Dream – Traditional American Values including core familial values – Traditional forms of child learning, typically including light religious indoctrination – Raising sons and daughters to embrace traditional familial male and female roles – Know-How, Do It Yourself Self sufficiency, including pride as a virtue to be reluctance to ask for help – Business, productivity, entrepreneurship, wealth building – Minimal government interference – Tough on true crime (murder, kidnapping, rape, theft, fraud, etc.) – Charity and missionaryism – Closed borders; be selective and cherry pick immigrants DEMOCRAT ANTITHESIS – The American Dream leaves too many poor, uneducated, and genetically IQ handicapped behind and you should feel ashamed of that – Traditional family values hold down girls and women from reaching their true potential intellectually, academically, and independent financially – Traditional child rearing tends to empower male children and handicap female children such that they are dependent on males – Self sufficiency, know-how, and self dealing, etc. in the trades disadvantages the poor, uneducated, IQ handicapped and so collective bargaining through unions on the private and public levels are necessary, as is affirmative action to award the less fortunate at the expense of penalizing the naturally selected – Capitalism in general places the means of production and prosperity in the hands of entrepreneurs who may not be market driven but politically driven, so fascism is necessary (quibbles I’m sure, but state control through vast regulation of quasi-private enterprise IS what fascism IS) – Maximum governmental regulation (fascism) is necessary and the best means of producing that outcome is through political rent-seeking behavior, turning market entrepreneurs into political entrepreneurs – Criminal prosecution is a tool used by the right to control the underclasses – Grassroots charity comes with ideological strings attached, usually religious and so, this too ought to be a secular and state team effort with corporate charity and United Nations oversight rather than individuals and small groups seeing a need and assuaging it to their abilities – Open borders; lift the poor and underprivileged …Not all-inclusive, such as, strong feminist activism, queer agenda, transgender stuff, etc. In terms of the dialectic synthesis, that’s libertarianism. Strong on markets, self-sufficiency, entrepreneurship, minimal government interference, private charity…but also live and let live on the social issues. The question is, without the Republican and Democrat labels, the memes, the Media, entertainment, and Hollywood narrative crafting either way, which set of values do you more viscerally identify with that the other? Hey, Curt Doolittle, your stream of consciousness and/or sweat and tears lists are always more comprehensive than mine. Anything to add, retract, nuance, etc?

  • Postmodern, Critique, Pilpul: Hicks, Macdonald, and Doolittle

    October 11th, 2018 5:34 PM POSTMODERN, CRITIQUE, PILPUL: HICKS, MACDONALD, AND DOOLITTLE Understanding of Postmodernism spreads via Hicks. Critique by Macdonald. And I (Curt) do the history of Pilpul (sophism), Critique(gossip), the Fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudorationalism-sophism, and supernaturalism-occultism) and their use as vehicles for loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion for the purpose of generating moral hazard that can be profited from by fraud. This includes Abrahamism, Marxism, Postmodernism, and Feminism. Now, we know what the left does now and how they do it – and we have produced a science out of testimony to stop it. The only challenge left is extending the law of involuntary warranty from goods and services to speech – thereby limiting public speech to that which is warrantable, and restoring defamation. This will reverse the century and a half of the industrialization of lying.      

  • Quoted in the Post

    Quoted in the Post

    October 11th, 2018 6:26 PM

    —“Hi Curt, it looks like you were quoted in the NY Post.”– John Mark

    Screen Shot 2019-03-30 at 10.19.19 AM

    https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/wheres-the-outrage-over-hillarys-call-for-a-civil-war/ CONTENT HERE: Two events from the last two days stand out. The first came Monday night with President Trump’s forceful yet compassionate speech at the swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The president opened with an extraordinary apology on behalf of the country to Kav­anaugh and his family“for the terrible pain and suffering” they endured during the historically brutal confirmation process. He said the unfounded allegations violated fairness and “the presumption of innocence.” Trump also tenderly addressed Kavanaugh’s young daughters, telling them “your father is a great man, a man of decency, character, kindness and courage.” The event was something of a spike-the-football moment in front of a cheering White House audience and as such was a clever piece of stagecraft, where Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins were saluted. But the ceremony was much more than mere boosterism. With the eight other Supremes sitting in the front row, Trump aimed to restore dignity to the judiciary at a time when the dirtiest tricks of politics have buried the court in a mountain of mud. The president is right to worry that the character-assassination attempt on Kavanaughmay turn out to be a seminal moment in American political and cultural history. The ideas that the court is just another political branch and that the presumption of innocence no longer applies if you are on the other team represent a seismic shift in how we look at each other and the nation as a whole. If those ideas stick, we are in more trouble than we can imagine. And while Trump has at times unnecessarily contributed to the rancor, he was terrific Monday in trying to repair what Senate Democrats and their media handmaidens tried to destroy. Which brings me to the second event of note: Hillary Clinton’s statement Tuesday that Democrats “cannot be civil” as long as Republicans hold the White House and Congress. “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.” There you have it — a declaration of war and a license for violence. Where is the media outrage? Clinton knows we are already in the danger zone when it comes to the political temperature. Her comments, then, are as reckless as bringing a can of gasoline to a bonfire. She’s stoking trouble to gain a foothold in the 2020 race — and damn the consequences. Her claim that civility can return when Dems have power is an admission that the ends justify the means. Then again, she never fails to disappoint. As I wrote Sunday, she has spent the last two years casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Trump presidency because the election didn’t go her way. That makes her guilty of the very thing she found “horrifying” when Trump suggested he might not abide by the results if he thought they were rigged. “He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position,” she said in their final debate, in October 2016. She added, “That is not the way our democracy works.” But it does work exactly that way when Democrats are denied what they feel entitled to. They should be careful what they wish for. For if the Kavanaugh experience revealed anything, it is that Trump’s GOP knows how to fight back and win. It is hard to imagine that Kavanaugh would have survived such an onslaught under any other ­recent Republican candidate or president. There were so many reasons, and so much media pressure, that it would not have been surprising if a bloc of senators called the allegations a “distraction” and waved a white flag. They didn’t because Trump and Kavanaugh didn’t back down. Still, there is danger when two sides both think they can outlast the other. Responding to my concern that America might be sleepwalking into a second civil war, a number of readers agreed. Some said they welcomed it. Curt Doolittle wrote this: “We aren’t sleepwalking into it, we know exactly what we’re doing and why. The hard right and hard left are planning on it, ready for it, and looking for an opportunity.” He said the pressure has been building and that “the only reason it hasn’t turned hot is the outlier of Trump’s election. If Clinton had won, we’d already be there.”

    City Hall in the X-treme

    The City Hall press release was overflowing with superlatives. The action was “historic,” a “landmark” and “groundbreaking.” Did Mayor Putz find a cure for homelessness? Did he solve the problem of failing schools? Did he fix public housing or the subways? Nah, the small stuff is beneath him. His “stop the presses” accomplishment was signing legislation putting a third gender on city birth certificates. As his office described it, “In addition to the ‘male’ and ‘female’ designations, birth certificates will also show an ‘X,’ allowing gender non-binary people who identify neither as men nor women to have a birth certificate that more accurately reflects their identities.” The law takes effect Jan. 1 and removes the requirement that a medical or mental health professional affirm an individual’s gender to change the certificate. The effect is that anyone can simply demand a new birth certificate and choose a new gender. It’s not clear if there are age requirements or limits to the number of times an individual can make changes. To the roster of activist groups hailing the action, the change is something of a Holy Grail. First lady Chirlane McCray suggested it was just a first step, saying, “We will not stop there — we strive to extend that dignity to every aspect of life.” I don’t doubt that gender identity is a serious, complex issue for some people. But I do wonder about the impact of this dramatic change on society, including gender roles in everything from sports to toilets, and about the priorities of the mayor and City Council. Do they have the same passion for public safety and good schools? Do they care as much about the unfairness of the tax system? My fear is that they don’t, and that their intensity about narrow issues is a fig leaf hiding their surrender on broad ones. There are superlatives for that, too. Disgraceful, cowardice and shameful come to mind.

  • Countering Right Criticism of Cultural Marxism

    October 11th, 2018 3:31 PM COUNTERING RIGHT CRITICISM OF CULTURAL MARXISM ( In response to: https://www.facebook.com/pepe.escobar.77377/posts/10156644462266678 ) So you didn’t actually make an argument I can counter, other than “Misinterpreted” – when the universal criticism of the left is that while the right can understand the left (rationally) the left cannot comprehend the right (intuitionistically) and resorts to psychologisms (Critique). What outcomes, arguments, propositions, assumptions were misinterpreted? THE UNDERLYING ARGUMENT Pilpul consists of a technique using sophisms (“justificationism”). Critique consists of a technique by which straw-man criticism without providing an alternative construction, for the opposition to criticize, substitutes for argument. And Feminine Competitive Instinct relies on disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossip, straw manning, and reputation destruction instead of competing with (answering) the objections put forth in the argument. Feminine group strategy relies on prosecution of reciprocity in support of advancing proportionality indirectly. These are all methods of sophomoric rhetorical fraud. They are instinctual. And they appear to have evolved to control alphas (reproductive choice). Whereas Aristotelianism, Empiricism, Scientific method, Economics, and Rule of law require Operational Language (Testimony), warranty, demonstrated due diligence, and active suppression against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalisms, and deceit as means of demanding reciprocity. Conversely, Abrahamism (pilpul, critique, false history, supernaturalism), reformed into Marxism-Boasianism-Freudianism-(even Cantorian sets)-Adorno/Frankfurt practice of pseudoscience that advances the feminine reproductive and competitive strategy and the feminine method of speech, to undermine reciprocity and testability in order to prevent full accounting of merit. And when the pseudoscientific(marxist analysis) and pseudo-rational (dialectic) argument failed, the French postmodernists reformed into (resorted to) outright Denialism (iq, race, gender, culture, class, causality, truth, un- decidability etc). Which is what the Right Refers to as “Cultural Marxism” and the Academy, Media, State complex make use of these narratives (propaganda, cult mythology) in combination with the downward expansion of college and university education, to fund teaching of, research into, and the production of literature, and the creation multiple generations of new ‘cultists’.

This activism resulted in the successful displacement of the aristocracy (military) from political rule, and the replacement of the church with the academy/media/state complex. And resulted in the incremental (quite intentional) selection of cases brought before the Supreme Court in order to undermine the constitution (via legislation from the bench) due to the weakness of the constitution not providing a vehicle for return of undecidable propositions to the legislature. The right has consistently resisted, and held onto the moral argument sufficiently to deny political power, (albeit in archaic enlightenment prose), but the left achieved through single motherhood expansion and underclass immigration, and involuntary transfer of reproduction to the lower classes through taxation, that which they could not achieve by ideas. This has resulted in a Racial Polity, and the racialization of both parties with single white women and vulnerable underclasses as the only race-defectors. So, the Right argument (Aristocratic-hierarchical, Meritocratic, Market, Rule of Law, Reciprocity, Truth, and Duty, and Eugenic), is not that there is some vast left conspiracy – because the right doesn’t believe the left (Feminine, Herd, Dysgenic) mind possesses any agency whatsoever (hence the evolution of the Useful Idiot label into the NPC Meme). But instead that the cult of supernaturalism was replaced first by a cult of pseudoscience, and having failed at pseudoscience, replaced by a cult of outright denialism. The fact that these sophomoric arguments (pilpul) were all produced using Critique, in support of the feminine reproductive strategy (proportionality of the herd), in order to circumvent rule of law by reciprocity (ancient customary law of tort), and to enforce discretionary rule instead,(despite that the country was designed as a ‘third way’ between authoritarian discretion of the aristocracy, and authoritarian socialism of the church.) Democracy is (majoritarian monopoly) little more than the search for power external to the market. The right attempts to preserve the market (meritocracy and reciprocity of the pack) while the left attempts to circumvent the market (equality and proportionality of the herd.) Yes there are the Soros’ of the world that do this by intent. By by and large the left is just lacking the right’s Agency, which is what separates right and left: Agency. [Left: Female Reproductive Strategy]: Consumption : Equality Devotion Proportionality [Libertarian: Unfranchised Male Reproductive Strategy]: Production: Reciprocity, Liberty [Conservative: Franchised (established) Male Reproductive Strategy]: Conservation: Reciprocity Hierarchy/Loyalty, Purity.

 Arguably only libertarians only have any agency since they are the only faction with sufficient understanding of both economics and rule of law to possess it, but as a minority they are ineffective outside of think tanks and policy influence. The conservatives however remain dedicated to the individual as the central object of the law of tort; the family as the central unit of policy; and the civic order as the central unit of commons production; and the state limited to service as the insurer of last resort. Since this combination is a prescription for a eugenic social order, and that eugenic order (“manorialism”) was successful in both the far east and far west in sufficiently eugenic limitations on reproduction to produce a nearly completely middle class polity, this social order is both the origin of east and west prosperity, but in conflict with the expansion of single mothers, and third worlder underclasses without such genetic cultural traditional, and institutional histories. We provide agency through science: the use of correspondence with reality, using operational language to produce consistency between existence, action, perception, and intuition. And we use the scientific method to insure that the frauds sophisms, fictionalism, and outright deceits so common outside of the west, are incrementally suppressed. Unfortunately the continentals and the mesopotamians retain their sophisms, pseudosciences, and supernaturalisms, and their desperate followers try to bring moral FICTIONS into reality by the act of chanting them. “Thus endeth the lesson.” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Postmodern, Critique, Pilpul: Hicks, Macdonald, and Doolittle

    October 11th, 2018 5:34 PM POSTMODERN, CRITIQUE, PILPUL: HICKS, MACDONALD, AND DOOLITTLE Understanding of Postmodernism spreads via Hicks. Critique by Macdonald. And I (Curt) do the history of Pilpul (sophism), Critique(gossip), the Fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudorationalism-sophism, and supernaturalism-occultism) and their use as vehicles for loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion for the purpose of generating moral hazard that can be profited from by fraud. This includes Abrahamism, Marxism, Postmodernism, and Feminism. Now, we know what the left does now and how they do it – and we have produced a science out of testimony to stop it. The only challenge left is extending the law of involuntary warranty from goods and services to speech – thereby limiting public speech to that which is warrantable, and restoring defamation. This will reverse the century and a half of the industrialization of lying.