Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • DEFINING POSTMODERNISM Postmodernism evolved in response to the failure of marxi

    DEFINING POSTMODERNISM

    Postmodernism evolved in response to the failure of marxism socialism – a dogma which was pseudoscientific, and evidentially failed. Having to abandon pseudoscience, Postmodernism attacks reason directly stating that there is no truth and argument – only power. So in effect all debate is meaningless and the only objective is power by any possible means.

    Postmodernism = Relativism = Anti-science, Anti-reason, Anti-truth. Since truth, reason, science, and evidence falsify the marxist-socialist-feminist theology, then postmodernists abandoned all evidence, science, reason, and truth, and pursue power by any means, which includes their obsession with promoting falsehoods in pursuit of power, with which to impose monopoly authority and economic tyranny (forcible redistribution), thereby repeating the jewish > christian > islamic destruction of the ancient world (reason), with jewish > christian > muslim destruction of the modern world (science).

    DEFINITION

    —“A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, political criticism, propaganda, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality.

    For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one’s own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.

    Postmodernism is “post” because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody – a characteristic of the so-called “modern” mind. The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning. “—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 10:11:00 UTC

  • FRACAS OUGHT TO GET INTERESTING “Netanyahu: Hitler Didn’t Want to Exterminate th

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578THIS FRACAS OUGHT TO GET INTERESTING

    “Netanyahu: Hitler Didn’t Want to Exterminate the Jews”

    (As far as I know it’s true. the original plans were relocation. I do not know what altered that plan other than the economics of warehousing and resettlement. Hitler often took the lead from Stalin, and Stalin had been extremely successful with the use of relocation. I am not really interested in this topic so much as interested in how to expel large numbers of invaders as have others, including the spanish, germans, and russians, over the centuries.)

    link: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578

    Netanyahu: Hitler Didn’t Want to Exterminate the Jews

    Prime minister tells World Zionist Congress that Hitler only wanted to expel the Jews, but Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti convinced him to exterminate them, a claim that was rejected by most accepted Holocaust scholars.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Tuesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler’s mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.

    In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here (to Palestine).’ According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: “What should I do with them?” and the mufti replied: “Burn them.”

    Netanyahu’s remarks were quick to spark a social media storm, though Netanyahu made a similar claim during a Knesset speech in 2012, where he described the Husseini as “one of the leading architects” of the final solution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 10:01:00 UTC

  • FRACAS OUGHT TO GET INTERESTING “Netanyahu: Hitler Didn’t Want to Exterminate th

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578THIS FRACAS OUGHT TO GET INTERESTING

    “Netanyahu: Hitler Didn’t Want to Exterminate the Jews”

    (As far as I know it’s true. the original plans were relocation. I do not know what altered that plan other than the economics of warehousing and resettlement. Hitler often took the lead from Stalin, and Stalin had been extremely successful with the use of relocation. I am not really interested in this topic so much as interested in how to expel large numbers of invaders as have others, including the spanish, germans, and russians, over the centuries.)

    link: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-absolves-hitler-of-guilt-1.5411578

    Netanyahu: Hitler Didn’t Want to Exterminate the Jews

    Prime minister tells World Zionist Congress that Hitler only wanted to expel the Jews, but Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti convinced him to exterminate them, a claim that was rejected by most accepted Holocaust scholars.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked public uproar when on Tuesday he claimed that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the one who planted the idea of the extermination of European Jewry in Adolf Hitler’s mind. The Nazi ruler, Netanyahu said, had no intention of killing the Jews, but only to expel them.

    In a speech before the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, Netanyahu described a meeting between Husseini and Hitler in November, 1941: “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jew. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, ‘If you expel them, they’ll all come here (to Palestine).’ According to Netanyahu, Hitler then asked: “What should I do with them?” and the mufti replied: “Burn them.”

    Netanyahu’s remarks were quick to spark a social media storm, though Netanyahu made a similar claim during a Knesset speech in 2012, where he described the Husseini as “one of the leading architects” of the final solution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 10:01:00 UTC

  • AESTHETICS AND POST-MODERNISM by Daniel Gurpide Multiculturalism also leads dire

    AESTHETICS AND POST-MODERNISM

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Multiculturalism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multicultural society, standards and traditions are abandoned. European standards are necessarily too ‘Eurocentric’; no group may impose its standards on any other—nor even maintain its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no longer a ‘centre.’ The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos.

    The real danger of art for egalitarians is that it offers ideals and models, and those ideals—in classical European art—are not egalitarian ideals, nor are the models politically correct. If you are trying to prepare students to be rootless, cosmopolitan citizens of the New World Order, you certainly do not want them to come into contact with the undemocratic spirit of Homer or Shakespeare.

    From it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an avant-garde which revels in the equally empty perverse. Again, as we begin to live in a society of ugly people, wherever we look we see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty—a people inundated with the bland and ugly, mingled with the weird and trendy and ugly—is sickened and greatly weakened.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 09:46:00 UTC

  • AESTHETICS AND POST-MODERNISM by @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide] Multicul

    AESTHETICS AND POST-MODERNISM

    by @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide]

    Multiculturalism also leads directly to the death of beauty in art. Different cultures have vastly different ideas of beauty. Michelangelo did not produce African masks. Chopin did not write rap or beat on hollow logs. John William Waterhouse and Jackson Pollock inhabited very different inner worlds. In a multicultural society, standards and traditions are abandoned. European standards are necessarily too ‘Eurocentric’; no group may impose its standards on any other—nor even maintain its own traditions for long. In painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, and the decorative arts, there is no longer a ‘centre.’ The continuity of thousands of years is broken. There is chaos.

    The real danger of art for egalitarians is that it offers ideals and models, and those ideals—in classical European art—are not egalitarian ideals, nor are the models politically correct. If you are trying to prepare students to be rootless, cosmopolitan citizens of the New World Order, you certainly do not want them to come into contact with the undemocratic spirit of Homer or Shakespeare.

    From it all, a bland, offensive-to-no-one, make-it-as-cheaply-as-possible artistic ethos invades our lives from every side, coupled with an avant-garde which revels in the equally empty perverse. Again, as we begin to live in a society of ugly people, wherever we look we see ugly paintings, ugly advertisements, ugly clothing, ugly body deformations and decorations, and ugly buildings. A people disconnected from its own traditions of beauty—a people inundated with the bland and ugly, mingled with the weird and trendy and ugly—is sickened and greatly weakened.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 09:46:00 UTC

  • well done!

    well done!

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 03:38:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024137249414410246

    Reply addressees: @dagmar_schmitt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024109918247301120

    IN REPLY TO:

    @GudistGrug

    @curtdoolittle When we lie, we attempt to use language to turn other people into tools. We create gaps between understanding and reality. These gaps multiply until what was once clear is a kaleidoscope.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024109918247301120

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. REMINDER: WHEN YOU ASK ME TO REVIEW WORK I WI

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    REMINDER: WHEN YOU ASK ME TO REVIEW WORK I WILL DO SO – BUT YOU COST ME TIME. HENCE DON’T GIVE ME POSTMODERN JUNK.

    Review of a Bolivian Paper on the Alt Right.

    (ouch. remember that if you ask me to review academic work I will do my job. And if you are giving me postmodern drivel I’m gonna be very unkind in my analysis)

    0) First, I can improve on the understanding of the manifesto section a bit. However I am extremely critical if not hostile to the method of argument you are using because it contains nothing testable and as far as I can tell is just postmodern critique. So I won’t comment on it.

    1) The correct framing would be that the current generation of thinkers has adopted the marxist techniques (ridicule, shaming, rallying) simply by being exposed to them for decades.

    2) The movement was made possible by a)end of socialism, b) genetics, c) cog sci (d)immigration.

    3) the movement is merely a cyclical return to nationalism in the face of immigration – first Hispanic since hispanics have one to one replacement of whites, but secondly and more emphatically, muslim immigration which we perceive as even more hostile than jewish.

    4) Trump is an ally of the alt right simply because he is pursuing a strategy of nationalism and the restoration of the balance of powers instead of the single superpower of America that is too expensive for Americans to continue paying for.

    5) the alt right is possible because the internet allows people who are naturally apolitical to mirror the propaganda strategy of the marxists who are highly political. So the economics of collaboration have been reversed from favoring the left to the right.

    6) closing down stormfront and others merely drove the movement to use symbolic language, private message boards, video and podcasts, and made it possible for the right leadership to charge money for content. It backfired.

    7) For the rest of the article I had to give up translating and reading at page 50 because (a)you do not put forth a testable argument and then demonstrate how you defend it, and (b)you then engage in opinion measurement (intellectual gossip) rather than any form of measurement.

    8) This kind of argument passes for pseudo-academic work in literature (its all they have to measure) but not in social science where it is nothing more than formally outlined gossip.

    9) I am sorry if this offends, but you have clearly been taught that this form of argument is acceptable academic work. It isn’t.

    https://www.academia.edu/36845752/El_esquema_ideol%C3%B3gico_de_la_derecha_alternativa

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:35:40 UTC

  • 8) This kind of argument passes for pseudo-academic work in literature but not i

    8) This kind of argument passes for pseudo-academic work in literature but not in social science where it is nothing more than formally outlined gossip.
    9) I am sorry if this offends, but you have been taught that this form of argument is acceptable academic work. It isn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:29:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024044260880986113

    Reply addressees: @Aremazu19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

  • 7) For the rest of the article I had to give up translating and reading at page

    7) For the rest of the article I had to give up translating and reading at page 50 because (a)you do not put forth a testable argument and then demonstrate how you defend it, and (b)you then engage in opinion measurement (intellectual gossip) rather than any form of measurement.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:26:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024043701985787904

    Reply addressees: @Aremazu19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

  • 0) First, I can improve on the understanding of the manifesto section a bit. How

    0) First, I can improve on the understanding of the manifesto section a bit. However I am extremely critical if not hostile to the method of argument you are using because it contains nothing testable and as far as I can tell is just postmodern critique. So I won’t comment on it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 21:22:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024042677078253568

    Reply addressees: @Aremazu19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1024025534467121153