(FB 1550592572 Timestamp) PROJECT DONE (FORK IN IT) FOR ALL RELIGIOUS FOLK: My position on religion is that my research project is finished and that there is nothing left for me to discuss because no exchange is possible between factions. So please do not waste my time. MY JOB IS THE LAW My job is to provide means of decidability in matters of conflict: the law, and to prevent conflict by the incremental suppression of parasitism with the law. And in particular to suppress the semitic and female means of deceit which is baiting into moral hazard with false promise, pilpul, and critique, and the suppression of statements of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading and framing, suggestion and obscurantism, the fictionalisms of idealism/sophism, supernaturalism/occult, pseudoscience/magic, outright deceit, and denialism. A FUTURE WORK MAYBE If I live long enough to do a book on religion, then that will be the time for further discussion. But at this point I think none will be necessary. (I have enough problem with the two in progress) A FORK IN THE RESEARCH Religion was the only open position where I thought I might have an opportunity to unify groups, but it’s not possible because of the abrahamists. So as far as I know, the last open question is closed. And all that remains is completing the constitution, the first book, and the courses. Which frankly is … an inhuman amount of work.
Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550587990 Timestamp) RESULTS OF TESTING THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT’S ABILITY TO CONDUCT A TRADE WITH THE GROWING UNAFFILIATED. Nothing. changed. at. all. HABITUATED REDUCTIONISM 0. It’s not possible for ordinary people to distinguish between (a) the law proper, and (b) the constitutional implementation of that law as federating contract, and (c) the regional or local law as adaptive to tradition and norm, where local constitutions that differ according to local preference (demand). So no matter how we preface it, we have a body politic indoctrinated into ideal thought and we are in a position where we must appeal to lowest common denominator in order to have the numbers to obtain power to demand constitutional reform (restoration of natural rights under natural law.) Disappointing but expected. Means we should continue to selectively include the ‘smart folk’ and work on the solution and disassociate from and ignore the non-intellectual class as the ‘voice of reason’ between left and right “in the interests of the center”. SPECIFY THE FRAME OF THE ANSWER (Despite frustrating the audience.) 1. I have to be very clear and preface every answer with whether they want the answer according to “the law”, a federal constitution(insurer of last resort limited to real property (private and public), a state constitution or a local constitution not limited to real property (including norms and commons). People think I’m waffling because they want a religion, philosophy, or ideology that isn’t a division of labor and purvey. But no matter what I do I end up with ‘in a propertarian world…?” (which is meaningless), rather than ‘with propertarianism can we construct….?” We can construct anything. There are at least three possible means of running a government given our current condition. EXPLAIN FROM THE TOP DOWN 2. In explanations I need to start at the top down (vision) rather than bottom up (science) and say that P, at least for european peoples, would recommend, because of our genetics and cultures, that we restore the many states if not city states of europe. And that MOST of the time when I am talking I am recommending that solution. HOWEVER, we can (a) do so and secede, we can (b) simply devolve the federal government and sort without seceding, or (c)we can attempt to take over the federal government and enforce the devolution of the federal scope of responsibilities and devolve non-real-property (everything but insurer of last resort) to the states. In other words, P IS TOOLKIT. With the P TOOLKIT I am proposing one of a nearly infinite number of constitutions for different peoples. IMPOSSIBILITY OF STANDARDIZATION – Trade Impossible. 3. Religiosity/Rationality/Science and class/intelligence, religious heritage/tradition, training into different sects, There exists no immediate solution to the problem of our religions other than prohibiting alien religions, providing incentives, and letting time continue to run its course. Why? Just as animals imprint we behave similarly thru training that is continuously reinforced and justified. And only significant adaptive opportunity or pressure alters this training. Those of us who are more naturally scandinavian will migrate one way, those more continental another, and those more mediterranean or slavic another, and that will simply mean the preservation of our cults. The problem is not there, but in eliminating further jewish and muslim damage to the civilization. NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE, ABANDON ATTEMPT AT RESTORING THE CHURCH 4. For my part it is better to truncate the constitutional section on religion, not try to save or reform the religion, expand education, expand festivals and holidays, and let natural evolution take its course in the production of educational differences that are expressible as religious differences. In other words it is not possible to restore the centrality of the church to the polity. Without the compromise of truth, there is no means by which the faithful and the rational can be institutionally unified. PIVOT MAINSTREAM 5. I think P is better for normies ‘that want to get along’ than for the right wing and left wing fringe. And pivoting away from the fringe to the mainstream is something we should have done a bit earlier, but are now only able to. Even though I think we are not ready. Underlying biological imperatives. … (F) – Religious fringe (Feminine/Submission), … (aM) – Anarchic fringe(Exchange). … (eM) – Authoritarian Fringe(Masculine/Dominance), All of these fringes look for rules by which they can avoid negotiation and compromise with people (monopolies). Each express their bias in method of argument (paradigm and vocabulary) as well as masculine libertarian or feminine application of (eM) Established-Masculine-Threat, (aM)Ascendent-Masculine-Exchange-Boycott, or (F)Feminine-Undermining. In other words genetics rule and the fringes cannot compromise leaving the mainstream and mainstream incentives as the optimum and letting the fringes drive demand for a viable solution to coming conflict. This disassociates us further from the fringe and lowers resistance to the spread of the movement. However, this occurs at the expense of an increase in the cost and time of distribution. And alters the pitch somewhat to appeal to the mainstream leaving only the far left as an opponent. -Curt (PS: And y’all thought I was just trolling christians…..)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550690335 Timestamp) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE? —“Interesting. What do you think is the purpose of religion?”—@HHBenedictXVII The training of intuition by Myth, Ritual, and Repetition which as a consequence produces interpersonal Regularity and personal Mindfulness, by reduction of need for comprehension of increasingly complex information where we have increasing limits to agency, in complex polities. Hence the distribution of religiosity vs rationality by intelligence and agency. Humans, esp women, have vulnerability to neuroticism (‘worry’, stress) if they lack agency. Intelligence provides agency. Religiosity decreases. Moral behavior remains constant.
-
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAIT
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAITHâ— CLARIFICATION Over the past few weeks I have been trying to find a means of limiting abrahamic means of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, and pilpul and critique, from application outside of christian doctrine, thereby ending the ability to pursue marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism and other application of abrahamic persuasion (deceit) in the ongoing war against our people by the globalists (mostly semites and their allies). The solutions were either prohibit, gain compromise, or give compromise, which is the ancient one that faced the romans when attempting to bring the jews into the empire. The ‘give compromise’ is an exchange: “spiritual is true by faith, and material is true by law”. This frustrates both parties a bit but is the only truly reciprocal exchange under the law. And it works for christianity alone because the law also requires compatibility with natural law. Judaism and Islam as well as marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism are not compatible with the law. So the remaining challenge is just to define christianity as some set of existing sects sharing some long standing tradition, limited to compliance with natural law AND the demarcation between the spiritual faith and the material law. I felt it was not possible even to achieve this compromise, so it was better to state the law as the law, and grant christians a specific license under the law. The exchange gives christianity peerage with the law. The exemption gives it permission under the law. And legal scholars will have to debate these things for centuries – because I cannot close the loophole of truthful speech because of the christian demand for identity between truth and myth. So that is where I ended up. To avoid the question by specific license rather than compromising on the question as a difference between faith and law. -Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550672089 Timestamp) —“Can anyone explain what separates @curtdoolittleâs view of Christianity from someone like Jeffersonâs? âJesus just wants you to love your neighbor. All the miracle stuff is sugar coating to help the medicine go down.â Itâs the oldest most milquetoast view ever.”— @HHBenedictXVII It doesn’t matter. I attempted to discover a means of legal tolerance of christianity with intolerance for other religions and it’s not possible because christians really do need their “woo woo”.The founders were Deists, and Jefferson (like me) saw Jesus as primitive philosopher. Because of demographics, and incentives, Xianity will continue to die off with each generation, resulting in the Benedict Option, leaving around a quarter of the population devout, but politically and economically powerless, while the rest continue with political and material rather than supernatural means of mindfulness. By demanding their ideal, being unwilling to compromise with secularists, and by being unwilling to use islamic levels of violence, Xians are done. Because it is a philosophy of the weak. Aryanism under the ‘excuse’ of Xianity was how our aristocracy ruled. w/o Aryans, no Xians. PEOPLE FOLLOW INCENTIVES NOT SHOULDS. It is possible to license christianity because of its adherence to natural law under the scholastics. It is not possible to license christianity if we tell people the dogma is ‘true’ rather than inspirational mythology. Ergo it is only possible to grant christianity special dispensation under the law. This is unacceptable for the devout because they cannot and do not hold to their faith in competition with truth, science, and law despite their claims to strong faith. The christian cannot tolerate separation between faith and truth because his faith is not strong enough to carry him. To the contrary. the truthful can tolerate the faithful when it comes to the commons in which they must act, when action in accordance with existential reality is always in their interests. There is no difference between Propertarian Natural Law, Moral Intuition, and Christian Morality EXCEPT that christians must show their devotion to this morality by lying (belief in nonsense) and the rest of us show our devotion to this morality simply by NOT LYING. I’m done with the trial run. It’s really, really, obvious that Xians demonstrate addiction responses to threats to their source of mindfulness (medication). And given the current state of xianity as not sufficiently desperate to compromise, while at the same time we are invaded by aliens, and under increasing rule by parasites, it appears that christians are the limiting factor on reform.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550690335 Timestamp) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE? —“Interesting. What do you think is the purpose of religion?”—@HHBenedictXVII The training of intuition by Myth, Ritual, and Repetition which as a consequence produces interpersonal Regularity and personal Mindfulness, by reduction of need for comprehension of increasingly complex information where we have increasing limits to agency, in complex polities. Hence the distribution of religiosity vs rationality by intelligence and agency. Humans, esp women, have vulnerability to neuroticism (‘worry’, stress) if they lack agency. Intelligence provides agency. Religiosity decreases. Moral behavior remains constant.
-
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAIT
(FB 1550687130 Timestamp) —âTEACHING AS TRUE BY LAW RATHER THAN TRUE BY FAITHâ— CLARIFICATION Over the past few weeks I have been trying to find a means of limiting abrahamic means of false promise, baiting into moral hazard, and pilpul and critique, from application outside of christian doctrine, thereby ending the ability to pursue marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism and other application of abrahamic persuasion (deceit) in the ongoing war against our people by the globalists (mostly semites and their allies). The solutions were either prohibit, gain compromise, or give compromise, which is the ancient one that faced the romans when attempting to bring the jews into the empire. The ‘give compromise’ is an exchange: “spiritual is true by faith, and material is true by law”. This frustrates both parties a bit but is the only truly reciprocal exchange under the law. And it works for christianity alone because the law also requires compatibility with natural law. Judaism and Islam as well as marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism are not compatible with the law. So the remaining challenge is just to define christianity as some set of existing sects sharing some long standing tradition, limited to compliance with natural law AND the demarcation between the spiritual faith and the material law. I felt it was not possible even to achieve this compromise, so it was better to state the law as the law, and grant christians a specific license under the law. The exchange gives christianity peerage with the law. The exemption gives it permission under the law. And legal scholars will have to debate these things for centuries – because I cannot close the loophole of truthful speech because of the christian demand for identity between truth and myth. So that is where I ended up. To avoid the question by specific license rather than compromising on the question as a difference between faith and law. -Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550672089 Timestamp) —“Can anyone explain what separates @curtdoolittleâs view of Christianity from someone like Jeffersonâs? âJesus just wants you to love your neighbor. All the miracle stuff is sugar coating to help the medicine go down.â Itâs the oldest most milquetoast view ever.”— @HHBenedictXVII It doesn’t matter. I attempted to discover a means of legal tolerance of christianity with intolerance for other religions and it’s not possible because christians really do need their “woo woo”.The founders were Deists, and Jefferson (like me) saw Jesus as primitive philosopher. Because of demographics, and incentives, Xianity will continue to die off with each generation, resulting in the Benedict Option, leaving around a quarter of the population devout, but politically and economically powerless, while the rest continue with political and material rather than supernatural means of mindfulness. By demanding their ideal, being unwilling to compromise with secularists, and by being unwilling to use islamic levels of violence, Xians are done. Because it is a philosophy of the weak. Aryanism under the ‘excuse’ of Xianity was how our aristocracy ruled. w/o Aryans, no Xians. PEOPLE FOLLOW INCENTIVES NOT SHOULDS. It is possible to license christianity because of its adherence to natural law under the scholastics. It is not possible to license christianity if we tell people the dogma is ‘true’ rather than inspirational mythology. Ergo it is only possible to grant christianity special dispensation under the law. This is unacceptable for the devout because they cannot and do not hold to their faith in competition with truth, science, and law despite their claims to strong faith. The christian cannot tolerate separation between faith and truth because his faith is not strong enough to carry him. To the contrary. the truthful can tolerate the faithful when it comes to the commons in which they must act, when action in accordance with existential reality is always in their interests. There is no difference between Propertarian Natural Law, Moral Intuition, and Christian Morality EXCEPT that christians must show their devotion to this morality by lying (belief in nonsense) and the rest of us show our devotion to this morality simply by NOT LYING. I’m done with the trial run. It’s really, really, obvious that Xians demonstrate addiction responses to threats to their source of mindfulness (medication). And given the current state of xianity as not sufficiently desperate to compromise, while at the same time we are invaded by aliens, and under increasing rule by parasites, it appears that christians are the limiting factor on reform.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550780740 Timestamp) THE TRADE WITH XIANITY 1 – Look. I have an agreement ‘with management’ to stop harshing on Xianity now that my tests are done. You have really good people on the christian side. I recommend a lot of them. James fox Higgins and Vox Day among the obvious. Distributist is good at what he does too. … 2 – … so given that we are speaking in different grammars, me in via negativa science and law of dispute resolution, and you are speaking in via positiva of theology of organization, it’s not possible to discourse. 3 – So, if you want your faith I’ll fight for it if you fight for my law.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550767023 Timestamp) IT’S MOSTLY CHRISTIAN TROLLS THIS TIME —“We’re getting a lot more trolls lately”– It’s just (a) the christians (b) those falling behind the window, (c) because we are getting a lot of attention, (d) because john mark is talking about the solution rather than the methodology. Devout Libertarians > Ancaps > Christians – they’re the margins which is why they’re here. Note that we get the opposite reaction from police, military, families, laboring, working, lower middle, and middle class who are being screwed by the current condition. Our market is those with personal agency but political subjugation. The online community is rife with people of little personal agency. Or as bill says “skin in the game”. (PS: I thought trolls were a heathen thing? But we built a lot of bridges in the past century, so we made troll condos everywhere I guess, and there was massive immigration. )