Curt Doolittle

Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM. (and fur

    YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM.

    (and further criticisms of abrahamism)

    —“If I organized a debate between you and Jared Howe would you do it?”—

    Well, you know, I spent a whole day on the guy, and (a) he didn’t read anything much I posted, (b) he clearly didn’t understand it if he did, (c) I am not sure he understands himself what he’s saying (d) he resorted to simple chanting accusations without demonstrating how they applied to my argument, (e) he blocked me when it became increasingly difficult for him to not answer.

    Now add to that (f) that it is pretty hard to write and read analytic philosophy because it’s turgid, and it’s harder to speak it and listen to it. And add (g) the audience will much more easily be bored with long chains of reasoning.

    But you know, there are psychological reasons people favor kantian rationalism, just as there are reasons people favor theology. One of those reasons is preservation of cognitive investment. The other is that while science (what I do) doesn’t allow you to ignore any argument, rationalism (what jared does) allows you to ignore many arguments, and theology allows you to ignore any argument. Kant was trying to recreate theology in secular verse, and this was his reason: to resist the scientific revolution.

    So I think if you asked me to debate hoppe on it, then we would show something important to the community. I think if you asked me to debate david gordon or walter block maybe. Because then the audience could follow. But none of them will debate me. They know better. And they cannot afford defloration in public.

    So it’s not so much I wouldn’t do it, as I am not sure he’s capable of the argument, or intellectually honest enough to engage in it.

    So when you ask me to debate him, I would enter a debate, but I would end up being a prosecutor: “If everything you say can be explained with science but you cannot explain everything sciences says with what you say? Why do you employ such a system of thought? Why is it you fear science just as theologian fears science?” The answer is because, kant reformed abrahamic lying from supernatural to ideal. Just as marx,boaz,freud reformed abrahamic lying from the ideal to the pseudoscientific. Just as the french(rousseau, Derrida) reformed pseudoscientific to outright fiction: reality by chanting.

    Mises applied the same pseudoscientific reasoning as marx did he just chose different half truths in order to reform marx when marx ended failing. Marx had stopped writing after he read the marginalists because his labor theory of value was now dead. Mises updated marx by inverting universal common property ignoring externalities to universal private property to the exclusion of common property ignoring externalities. He did so by abandoning the labor theory of value for the mengerian subjective value, and abandoning the universal underclass strategy in favor of universal middle class strategy. He replaced the pseudoscience of the labor theory of value, and ignoring the darwinian revolution with the pseudoscience of (a) casting science as justificationary(constructive) rather than critical (subtractive), (b) conflating axiomatic(necessary) mathematics with theoretic science (contingent). (c) conflating truth(science) and morality(volition). Which is precisely the technique used by the abrahamists: conflating myth with history, advice with command, wisdom with law, dysgenia with good.

    This does not mean marx and mises did not contribute to intellectual history. it just means like everything else Abrahamists do, it’s cherry-picking of half truths and half deceits, wrapped in exceptional mythological storytelling so that through overloading people can be ‘convinced’ by suggestion when they intuit that it’s reasonable. When in fact, the purpose of the argument structure is to bypass all reason. Suggestion is just ‘hacking’ the brain. And that is the purpose of Abrahamism: deceit.

    FWIW: You can tell everything about an individual or group or civilization by their definition of truth. And in particular, whether that truth employs the fictional(supernatural), the cognitive(analytic), the ideal(logical), the empirical(existential), or the operational(actionable), or all of the above.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 09:00:00 UTC

  • I think the argument is won. There is nothing good in christianity that was not

    I think the argument is won. There is nothing good in christianity that was not there prior. Christianity was developed like marxism/postmodernism as a resistance movement by the underclasses and women against the aristocratic classes (men). And while the ancients relied on deflationary truth and deflationary institutions, christianity like judaism (and then islam) relied on conflationary truth and conflationary institutions. Where the ancients relied on truth, technology, law, the abrahamists relied on deception, superstition, and scriptural authority.

    The matter is done. Christianity is done. Our natural religion was mythical-historical, nature-venerating, and stoic ritual in competition with epicurean experience.

    And that is what we have seen since the dawn of the enligthenment: the continuous progress of science by a minority and the continuous resistance by the underclasses against it.

    True is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:41:00 UTC

  • THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY – AND THE FUTURE OF OUR CIVIL RELIGION (must r

    THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY – AND THE FUTURE OF OUR CIVIL RELIGION

    (must read!)

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Catholic Christianity, in both Northern and Southern Europe, turned during medieval times into a different syncretic religion as a result of encountering Greco -Roman and Celto -Germanic culture. The pagan component of this religion, though usually unacknowledged, remained strong for a long time and it is this syncretic religion that people think of when they speak of ‘traditional Christianity’.

    However, the secularisation of the Christian West prevents any return to a sort of sociological Christianity which could be the vehicle in which to transmit a message of protest against modernity.

    The ‘right’-understood in a counter-revolutionary sense- has ceased to exist and religious Christianity no longer plays the role of a social-religious pillar or an ideal projection of a mythical -communitarian residue which could keep the different fragments of the egalitarian ecumene together. That role is played today by the religion of human rights and political correctness.

    The Christian churches themselves become fully aware of the situation and no longer identify themselves -if they ever did -with the destiny and culture of Europe, but rather with their own projects and historical interests. They merely constitute a minority within the egalitarian matrix :a backward and folkloric variation on the same theme.

    Christendom -as a marker of the European continent and peoples -is, in many ways, a fleeting sideshow in the world-historical development of the Christian faith. Christianity’s future lies in the ‘global South’, where its message of ‘pauper as Pantocrator ‘ – and its veneration of the meek and downtrodden – will no doubt be well received. Pope Francis (Bergoglio) is not an anomaly.

    In Curt Doolittle’s Summer School several ‘solutions’ have been proved to be false, a waste of time and energy: Libertarianism, petty intra-European fratricidal Nationalism, National-Socialism/Hitlerism, and also (traditional) Christianity. What’s next?

    I believe the iconoclasm of this ‘via negativa’ is the proper way forward :first clear the terrain of rubble and then begin the construction on more solid foundations.

    Ave et Salve.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 20:28:00 UTC

  • by Daniel Gurpide Christianity was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus, from the Le

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Christianity was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus, from the Levant to the Greco -Roman world. Its doctrines found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome.

    Eventually, after playing a far from negligible role in the collapse of the Roman Empire, the revolutionary spirit which stood in opposition to all authority – and hierarchy – was firmly organised by the Church of Rome.

    Once in power, the Church readily compromised with pre-Christian values and social forms, and condemned as heretics those who demanded that it live by the values of the gospels.

    The seed of rebellion and protest is inherent to the Gospels. That is why the Catholic Church traditionally opposed the reading and interpretation of the Bible by the people.

    –“Of all books, from a historical point of view,the most perilous is,indisputably, the Bible, if the public peril is to be in any way considered.”–(Goethe)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 20:27:00 UTC

  • My god does not care if I am pious. In fact, he prefers I not be. He cares only

    My god does not care if I am pious. In fact, he prefers I not be. He cares only that I am not a coward.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 05:07:00 UTC

  • “Crowns are for the valiant, sceptres for the bold! Thrones and powers for might

    “Crowns are for the valiant, sceptres for the bold!

    Thrones and powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold!”

    “Nay!” said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,

    “But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of men all!

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 19:00:00 UTC

  • “Paganism has a long tradition of trial and error in building practices, and a f

    —“Paganism has a long tradition of trial and error in building practices, and a focus on discovering information or testing the teachings in the furnaces of experience. Paganism produces the seed of empiricism.)”— Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 13:02:00 UTC

  • PAGANISM VS ABRAHAMISM (ADVICE VS COMMAND) PAGANISM = Myth (supernormalism) wher

    PAGANISM VS ABRAHAMISM (ADVICE VS COMMAND)

    PAGANISM = Myth (supernormalism) where in gods are but immortal men, bound by the laws of nature, and to whom we can appeal for assistance, but who herald our use of reason – and often fear our assent to superiority.

    ABRAHAMISM = Theism(supernaturalilsm) where gods bind nature and demand our submission by abandonment of our reason – and prohibit our assent to peerage.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 13:01:00 UTC

  • THE WINTER CANDLE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE SUMMER SUN OF PAGAN ACHIEVEMENT The ve

    THE WINTER CANDLE OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE SUMMER SUN OF PAGAN ACHIEVEMENT

    The velocity of everything ‘good’ was almost zero under the church compared to under paganism. And any claim otherwise is demonstrably false. One does not say ‘we did this few things here’ and say it compares to ‘we did these ten thousand here’ and not yet say that western many merely managed to light a few dim candles under ideal, supernatural, christianity compared to the blinding sun he produced under real, mythical, paganism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:42:00 UTC

  • THERE WAS NOTHING GOOD IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE IT. —“Peterso

    THERE WAS NOTHING GOOD IN CHRISTIANITY THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE IT.

    —“Peterson’s point in theism, using Christianity as his usual example, is that we didn’t develop somehow without it and if we cut it off we shouldn’t assume we’ll retain the good we got from it as a society. This has happened and it never goes that way. In fact it goes.the other way. If your Utopia is with God than your on the right track. Are you criticizing having ideals in general as well? Also, what is the basis for people having ideals?”— Billy Duke

    (a) that does not survive scrutiny, because everything good in christianity was demonstrably there beforehand in the pagan versions and everything bad in christianity was not there but added to politicize those pagan versions against aristocracy and reason.

    (b) It is very hard to make the argument that abrahamic religions, including the licensing of christianity and the forcible imposition of christianity, were concocted as other than a rebellion against the commercial market meritocracy, military meritocracy, legislative meritocracy, political meritocracy, religious meritocracy, and use of reason by the aristocracy both persian and greco-roman. Judaism, christianity, and islam were just the separatist fundamentalism(judaism), socialism(christianity), and militant communism(islam) of the ancient world. And visa-versa.

    The eastern empire was able to ally the underclasses against the weakened aristocracy and take power over (defeat) the western empire, in the same way the Marxists/Postmodernists/Feminists have allied against the aristocracy weakened by the french revolution and the world wars.

    There are only two existentially possible group evolutionary strategies to man: the aristocratic meritocratic (k-selection, eugenic, or “packs”), and the communist equalitarian (r-selection, dysgenic, or “herds”). Any order not explicitly meritocratic and eugenic will evolve into unmeritocratic and dysgenic. Just as all human organizations eventually calcify. It’s not consistency that makes us strong but constant ‘testing’ (competition).

    The most important competition however, is that between masculine eugenic(“pack”), and feminine dysgenic(“herd”). And we achieve the optimum possible nash equilibrium through markets for association, reproduction(marriage), commercial markets, intellectual markets, markets for commons (govt), and political markets (nations), when polities are small and homogenous, and can produce commons necessary for them without coming at the expense of others. But the consequence of those markets is suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses. And that is a good thing. Because the condition of each individual in a polity is determined more by the reduction of the underclass than by any other action we can take.

    (c) The central difference between, the aristocratic method and the underclass method is in cost vs demographics. It is one thing to use expensive high investment education in the development of meritocracy, truth, and reason, among the middle and upper classes, and much cheaper to develop low investment education in the development of resistance, fictionalism, and obedience in the lower classes. And this is still what we see in religiosity today. While morality remains constant, religiosity vs rational action is merely one of intelligence. The central problem being a full standard deviation in median IQ between the lower, middle, and upper classes. (90, 105, 120, 135). Hence the vehement militant religiosity of muslims (87), the tepid ratio-religiosity of christians 100, and the legalism of the educated (115), the and the virtue-signaling atheism of the intergenerational commercial, financial, and intellectual classes (130).

    (d) The church exemplifies the adage that he who writes history authors it. The church has a long history of ‘appropriation’ and almost no history of innovation. A long history of taking credit rather than giving it. A long history of advocating faith(submission) rather than reason(autonomy). A long history of attribution to the divine intention rather than natural consequence. A long history of claiming education, but failing to use the high time devotion to the church to literacy. A long history of claiming charity, but forcible accumulation of private property(largest land holder in europe). A long history of criticizing the aristocracy, but the major collector of land rents. A long history of claiming good, but persistent evidence of doing evil – most notably the templars, indoctrination, persecution, and ‘indulgences’.

    (e) there is but one utopia, and that is that man should make an eden of this world and every other. And he cannot do so with lies. If there are any gods, they have written their language in the structure of the universe, and it is through uncomfortable truth reason knowledge and calculation that we transcend the animal through comfortable falsehood, faith, ignorance, and storytelling.

    (f) As far as I know, the philosophy of the west has been that of the truth of martial aristocracy and the philosophy the failed peoples has been the lies of priestly communism. And while the chinese succeeded at building a wall to keep the ‘people of lies’ out, they were not able to develop the trust of the aristocratic west, any more than the aristocratic west was able to complete the roman project of building a wall to protect the west from the people of desert, steppe, and tundra. And it is this failing – to learn isolation from the chinese – that has been our downfall. Just as much as it is their failing – to learn trust from europeans – that was theirs. The difference is, that they have learned from us now, but we have not yet learned from them.

    (g) “Christendom without Christianity.”

    1) Extend familial love to brothers in arms, first above all.

    2) Extend kinship love to the polity

    3) Extirpate hatred from the human heart.

    4) Show tolerance of honest error, intolerance of all else; and respect for those who earn it, and disrespect for those who don’t. Kneel to none.

    5) Speak the truth without exception.

    6) Master an art, a science, a craft, and a trade.

    7) Bear and raise children to be husbands and warriors and wives and mothers.

    8) Preserve, Maintain and Beautify the commons

    9) Safeguard the young, weak, and elderly.

    10) Take nothing not paid for, seek nothing not earned.

    11) Place no burden of notice, attention or impediment upon others.

    12) Perform and enforce restitution for all wrongs.

    13) Punish or kill the criminal, wicked, and lazy.

    14) Defeat and exterminate all enemies completely

    15) Leave life having transcended yourself, your line, your polity, man, and this land, closer to omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, and beauty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 10:42:00 UTC