Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Steve Eisenberg, M.Ed. Education & Counseling, University of Massachusetts Syste

    Steve Eisenberg, M.Ed. Education & Counseling, University of Massachusetts System

    Trump is walking back as many horrible Obama policies as he can.

    Obama hates the US. It was his plan to destroy it. Part of the plan was to weaken our economy and our ability to defend ourselves, disarm the public, and to flood the country with foreigners who hate us and what we stand for.

    The best way to get attacked is to appear weak. Trump is making us less likely to go to war, because he is strengthening our economy and our defenses.

    NK is a different story. If we have to erase North Korea it won’t be Trump’s fault. It will be all of the presidents before him who kicked the can down the road, both Ds and Rs.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-11 18:45:00 UTC

  • via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won

    via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won’t admit it. Wilber has a fabulous breakdown of the ethical knots the left gets into by embracing multiculturalism as an end in itself. In Wilber’s model of human development, elite democrats are at a higher stage of evolution than garden-variety republicans. Generally speaking, the elite left sees that there are multiple valid perspectives, whereas the middle-brow right tends to focus on the Truth of just one perspective. The former is more evolved … BUT there is a huge caveat to this. Wilber makes his case eloquently on pages 171-173 of A Brief History of Everything: 1) ACHIEVING the multiculturalist worldview (i.e grasping the validity of diverse viewpoints and cultures) is a very rare, difficult and elite accomplishment. 2) While you yourself may have evolved from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric, and see that everyone deserves equal opportunity, few of the people you treat with your universalist consideration SHARE your universalism. They are not as evolved as you are — they are still egocentric or ethnocentric. You are extending universalist courtesy to people who absolutely won’t extend the same courtesy to you. This creates multiple contradictions for the multiculturalist: * The multiculturalist claims to be non-elite, but the mere capacity for worldcentric pluralism is a rare, elite accomplishment. (Only 10% of Americans have achieved it.) “So multiculturalism is a very elite stance that then claims it is not elitest.” * The multiculturalist confuses his highly evolved stance with the fact that getting to that high stance is a very rare and difficult accomplishment. * The multiculturalist claims we must treat all individuals and movements the same (no hierarchies) … and thus has no language to argue why some movements can or should be shunned. [In theory this leaves the multiculturalist in a position where he has to accept the KKK and Nazis as valid positions, but in reality he gets around this by claiming that only white supremacy is bad. Thus the ethnocentric movements of other races get a free pass.] At the core, the multiculturalist cannot allow for superior and inferior stances because he denies distinctions between stances altogether. Because the multiculturalist cannot defend the contradiction in this position, he is forced to become completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees. The result is censorship of dissenting opinions. “And so off we go with vicious intolerance in the name of tolerance, censorship in the name of compassion, with we-know-best thought police and mindless political correctness — with a bunch of elitists trying to outlaw everybody else’s elitisms … They have an elite stance that denies its own elitism — and they are lying about their actual identity. They have a false self system. And that is an identity crisis.” “The American universities have been hijacked by it. All that is doing is contributing to the retribalization of America.”

  • via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won

    via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won’t admit it. Wilber has a fabulous breakdown of the ethical knots the left gets into by embracing multiculturalism as an end in itself. In Wilber’s model of human development, elite democrats are at a higher stage of evolution than garden-variety republicans. Generally speaking, the elite left sees that there are multiple valid perspectives, whereas the middle-brow right tends to focus on the Truth of just one perspective. The former is more evolved … BUT there is a huge caveat to this. Wilber makes his case eloquently on pages 171-173 of A Brief History of Everything: 1) ACHIEVING the multiculturalist worldview (i.e grasping the validity of diverse viewpoints and cultures) is a very rare, difficult and elite accomplishment. 2) While you yourself may have evolved from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric, and see that everyone deserves equal opportunity, few of the people you treat with your universalist consideration SHARE your universalism. They are not as evolved as you are — they are still egocentric or ethnocentric. You are extending universalist courtesy to people who absolutely won’t extend the same courtesy to you. This creates multiple contradictions for the multiculturalist: * The multiculturalist claims to be non-elite, but the mere capacity for worldcentric pluralism is a rare, elite accomplishment. (Only 10% of Americans have achieved it.) “So multiculturalism is a very elite stance that then claims it is not elitest.” * The multiculturalist confuses his highly evolved stance with the fact that getting to that high stance is a very rare and difficult accomplishment. * The multiculturalist claims we must treat all individuals and movements the same (no hierarchies) … and thus has no language to argue why some movements can or should be shunned. [In theory this leaves the multiculturalist in a position where he has to accept the KKK and Nazis as valid positions, but in reality he gets around this by claiming that only white supremacy is bad. Thus the ethnocentric movements of other races get a free pass.] At the core, the multiculturalist cannot allow for superior and inferior stances because he denies distinctions between stances altogether. Because the multiculturalist cannot defend the contradiction in this position, he is forced to become completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees. The result is censorship of dissenting opinions. “And so off we go with vicious intolerance in the name of tolerance, censorship in the name of compassion, with we-know-best thought police and mindless political correctness — with a bunch of elitists trying to outlaw everybody else’s elitisms … They have an elite stance that denies its own elitism — and they are lying about their actual identity. They have a false self system. And that is an identity crisis.” “The American universities have been hijacked by it. All that is doing is contributing to the retribalization of America.”

  • via Michael Churchill Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won

    via Michael Churchill

    Ken Wilber: Multiculturalism is highly evolved … but won’t admit it.

    Wilber has a fabulous breakdown of the ethical knots the left gets into by embracing multiculturalism as an end in itself. In Wilber’s model of human development, elite democrats are at a higher stage of evolution than garden-variety republicans. Generally speaking, the elite left sees that there are multiple valid perspectives, whereas the middle-brow right tends to focus on the Truth of just one perspective. The former is more evolved … BUT there is a huge caveat to this.

    Wilber makes his case eloquently on pages 171-173 of A Brief History of Everything:

    1) ACHIEVING the multiculturalist worldview (i.e grasping the validity of diverse viewpoints and cultures) is a very rare, difficult and elite accomplishment.

    2) While you yourself may have evolved from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric, and see that everyone deserves equal opportunity, few of the people you treat with your universalist consideration SHARE your universalism. They are not as evolved as you are — they are still egocentric or ethnocentric. You are extending universalist courtesy to people who absolutely won’t extend the same courtesy to you.

    This creates multiple contradictions for the multiculturalist:

    * The multiculturalist claims to be non-elite, but the mere capacity for worldcentric pluralism is a rare, elite accomplishment. (Only 10% of Americans have achieved it.) “So multiculturalism is a very elite stance that then claims it is not elitest.”

    * The multiculturalist confuses his highly evolved stance with the fact that getting to that high stance is a very rare and difficult accomplishment.

    * The multiculturalist claims we must treat all individuals and movements the same (no hierarchies) … and thus has no language to argue why some movements can or should be shunned.

    [In theory this leaves the multiculturalist in a position where he has to accept the KKK and Nazis as valid positions, but in reality he gets around this by claiming that only white supremacy is bad. Thus the ethnocentric movements of other races get a free pass.]

    At the core, the multiculturalist cannot allow for superior and inferior stances because he denies distinctions between stances altogether. Because the multiculturalist cannot defend the contradiction in this position, he is forced to become completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees. The result is censorship of dissenting opinions.

    “And so off we go with vicious intolerance in the name of tolerance, censorship in the name of compassion, with we-know-best thought police and mindless political correctness — with a bunch of elitists trying to outlaw everybody else’s elitisms … They have an elite stance that denies its own elitism — and they are lying about their actual identity. They have a false self system. And that is an identity crisis.”

    “The American universities have been hijacked by it. All that is doing is contributing to the retribalization of America.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-10 11:11:00 UTC

  • @jackieearle (Just a compliment from an unimportant analyst) Just going through

    @jackieearle (Just a compliment from an unimportant analyst) Just going through your resume as part of a cast review. You deliver on the role every single time – so much so that it’s hard to recognize you across your work. Anyway. Just my two cents. Compliments. Great work.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-09 20:10:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/939588169258979329

  • ( FYI: This account shows up as “The Propertarian Institute” on that page and “E

    ( FYI: This account shows up as “The Propertarian Institute” on that page and “Eric Danelaw” everywhere else. )

  • ( FYI: This account shows up as “The Propertarian Institute” on that page and “E

    ( FYI: This account shows up as “The Propertarian Institute” on that page and “Eric Danelaw” everywhere else. )

  • ( FYI: This account shows up as “The Propertarian Institute” on that page and “E

    ( FYI: This account shows up as “The Propertarian Institute” on that page and “Eric Danelaw” everywhere else. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-09 14:29:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism And Its Discontents (Sic)

    PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic) So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools. However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives. I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science. The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility. They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man. Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency. A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility. Eat The Weak.

  • Propertarianism And Its Discontents (Sic)

    PROPERTARIANISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS (sic) So far Propertarianism has spun off a number of groups, and affected change on related philosophical schools. However, what does not seem to ‘spin off’ is the reduction of all thought and action to economic language of gains, losses and incentives. I explain traditions in economic prose that is merely an extension of physical science. The reason others don’t take this with them, being that most folks are looking for mindfulness (stoic exit) or fulfillment (romantic exit) or some sort of justification for their intuitions (philosophical exit), or excuse for lack of competitive ability (fictional exit). They’re looking for exit – not responsibility. They are not looking for a METHOD OF RULE that produces superior competition for the group, and superior rewards for rulers, or competitive transcendence (meaning evolution and speciation) of man. Aristocracy = Rule by the Best, Continuous Competitiion, and as a result Continuous Evolution, resulting in Speciation and Transcendence – all of it at a higher standard of living, and therefore with greater agency. A religion that provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and political realms, to those what want the benefits of aristocracy without the responsibility, is only interesting to me so far as it provides means of producing that mindfulness in favor of action, of competition, of invention, of transcendence – not by exit, but by responsibility. Eat The Weak.