Curt Doolittle

Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • HOW WAS CHRISTIANITY MADE? Take paganism: Sky Father, Jupiter, Mithra, Sol Invic

    HOW WAS CHRISTIANITY MADE?

    Take paganism: Sky Father, Jupiter, Mithra, Sol Invictus. Cast this character as an authoritarian god you must obey or you will be punished – instead of an advisory god who you choose cooperate with by asking favors. Claim a popular evangelical preacher is his messenger. Embellish this set of lies by pulling bits of or whole myths together and editing them to support the story. Put it in a book so it’s a canon. Close all the competing schools. Impose the rituals and holidays and stories on the people via propagandists. And you get a LAW BOOK. With a law book you have an authoritarian normative government that mirrors and authoritarian martial an commercial government. And in doing so you manufacture ignorance. Obedience, yes. Conformity, yes.

    That’s christianity: the imposition of ignorance on our people as a means of re-conquest of thew estern empire by the east, using middle eastern abrahamic reality-by-chanting (propagandism).

    Does that look a lot like Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, and the Frankfurt school? You bet it does. The frankfurt school and the council of nicea are very little different in consequence.

    Our people are being defeated yet again by the second, or if you consider Augustine, the third attempt at abrahamic deceptions: a technique invented to conquer and enslave the people of the middle east and india by their Indo Iranian conquerors.

    The only smart people are the chinese. They don’t put up with this stuff. THey will silence you. Without mercy. And they are right to.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 14:59:00 UTC

  • “You’re a Pagan?”— Dave Martel In the sense that (a) man has invented many god

    —“You’re a Pagan?”— Dave Martel

    In the sense that (a) man has invented many gods, and (b) there is one small set of laws (operations) governing the existential universe, then yes, I am a Pagan. In the sense that I and mine are from the warrior and merchant classes for over a thousand years, and place those value above those of christianity, I am a pagan.

    In the sense that (c) I practice heavy investment in trust and forgiveness, (d) I pray only to one god, (e) I pray contemplatively, I am a christian. In the sense that we try to extend kinship love (forgiveness) to non-kin by extraordinary risk taking and forgiveness, I am decidedly christian. This is why christianity creates prosperity where it goes and islam poverty and judaism parasitism. We can separate these religions by which interpersonal relation with outgroups that they foster.

    Western civilization has always been both pagan and christian, and has practiced deflationary aesthetics, theology, philosophy, law, and science.

    I am a pagan, and a christian, because all of us are pagans by that measure. If we were not pagans we would conflate these disciplines as do the jews and the muslims.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 14:47:00 UTC

  • SORRY. ITS ABRAHAMISM. IT HAS TO GO. Our churches don’t have to go but the lies

    SORRY. ITS ABRAHAMISM. IT HAS TO GO.

    Our churches don’t have to go but the lies do.

    All Abrahamism is lying. Zoroastrianism adds authoritarianism to myth. Abrahamism adds lying to myth. Judaism is just lies, Christianity is just lies, islam is just lies, and all of these lies were manufactured intentionally by panels of authors chartered with constructing such lies. The value of these lies was that they were comprehensible to primitive, superstitious, ignorant peoples who could either be deceived, or use the lies to deceive and exploit others.

    Our pagan religion consists only of WISDOM LITERATURE, not command, and not law. We negotiate with our gods. Abrahamists are slaves to their gods.

    Jesus was a really interesting philosopher if converted into ratio-scientific language. But the rest of the church’s lies are just that: lies. Really good ideas are really good ideas no matter who speaks them. But having one good idea does not convey any merit to the other ideas professed by an individual.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 14:37:00 UTC

  • CONTEMPLATING RELIGION AND METHODS Once you comprehend a god, a demigod, a hero,

    CONTEMPLATING RELIGION AND METHODS

    Once you comprehend a god, a demigod, a hero, or a saint, you can pray to him, or her and be surprised at the result. The technique works if you practice it whether you necessarily believe these gods exist as other than literary, social, and psychological constructs. There are evolutionary reasons for the success of physical rituals, mental rituals, unanswered prayer, and contemplation of conversations with gods, demigods, heroes and saints who you cannot lie to. It is precisely this inability to lie to them that performs the necessary function.

    Whether there is some extra-physical consequence is something else – my perception of these matters is that synchronicity is not rare, but the rule. But whether this is the result of exposure to similar stimuli or the result of consequences of another’s excitement of some unknown fabric of the universe is something I do not know but do not need to.

    The net result is whether gods, demigods, heroes and saits exists as literature, norm, and memory, and that events that seem supernatural are the result of patterns in wishful thinking, or synchronicity due to social similarity, or the result of excitement of some subatomic structure of the universe, does not matter.

    The reason being that the the value of reading about heroies and literary figures, talking to gods demigods, heroes and saints in mental-voice, talking to ancestors in mental voice, imagining talking to people we know or have known in mental voice, and talking to people in fact with both mental and spoken voice, all serve similar purposes, with the interesting benefit that w can only lie to real people and ourselves. It is in talking to the gods that we cannot lie to them, and in doing so cannot lie to one another.

    Moreover, this discourse, these rituals, are extremely effective at helping us both work through the problems of life using the knowledge of people we know, respect, admire, or ‘worship’.

    We know that the submission response provides a chemical reward to the mind by activating the ‘surrender to the pack’ response, that allows us to abandon our reason, and return to the experience of our middle, animal, brain.

    We know that the combination of practicing such spirituality (submission to the trust of the pack) and ‘letting go’ or “surrender it up to god’ provides relief for active minds unable or lacking the information to find solutions, or lacking the control to do so.

    I prefer that we all practice the stoic method, rather than the ritual method, rather than the buddhist method, rather than the prayer method, rather than the drug induced or dream state methods. The stoic acts us to ACT and THINK with discipline in daily life, rather than imaginary or supernatural, or by withdrawing from life.

    But it may in fact be that the stoic method is beyond the lesser able – Although, I do not see how it’s just harder to learn than the alternatives. BUt we teach reading, grammar, and math and that’s harder than stoicism.

    It may be that recitational prayer is the ‘dumbest and most effective’ method of producing rituals at the lowest cost with the least effort, in the shortest time. Other rituals are more expensive and harder to learn. recitation produces the resulting mental state without much demand of the individual.

    But even if we emphasize the stoic method, and gain the mindfulness we all require in a world far more complex than the pack, literary, mythical, supernormal, heroic, saintly characters whom we can conduct imaginary conversations will do perform the near equivalent of providing us with answers if we know enough about the minds of the characters. The reasons for this is that these characters evolve precisely because they provide this effect.

    For these reasons I have become less concerned with the method of achieving this state than the externalities caused by a large number of people making use of this state. And so far as I can tell, we can combine these different disciplines into a single religoin as the abrahamists have done by various forms of conflation and deceit.

    Or we can adopt the scientific ones of the stoics, heroic and saintly literature, and temples to various ‘characters’ the conversation and ‘sacrifice’ or ‘exchange’ to which, the discipline, synchronicity, or as yet undiscovered vibrations of the fabric of the universe, produce rather impressive results.

    Personally If I could visit temples around the world as I have visited churches, and say prayers to many gods for my children, wife, sisters, mother and my grandmother as I have, I would find it personally rewarding, and personally enlightening. Not because I believe these gods ‘exist’ in any particular way that is meaningful. But because of the actions that are required of me to perform those ritual, change ME, change my people, and change the world as a consequence, all of which are changed for the better.

    There is a a problem with the superficial Island 120 population (the church of ted) that must be defeated. Whether we defeat them through the form of literary contemplation I am recommending, or through the form of natural law that I am contemplating, or through the form of restoring the teachingn of virtues, vocabulary, grammar, logic, testimony, and rhetoric, or whehter we do some alternative, I do not much care.

    What I care about is ending the system of lies and conflation invented by Zoroaster and weaponized by the abrahamists of jewish, christian, and islamic and all variations thereof.

    It is a cancer upon this earth.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 21:17:00 UTC

  • CHOOSE: VIRTUES, IDEALS, OR COMMANDS? I mean, it’s as simple as choosing deflati

    CHOOSE: VIRTUES, IDEALS, OR COMMANDS?

    I mean, it’s as simple as choosing deflation and virtues, vs choosing conflation and ideals, vs conflation and supernaturalism.

    I don’t understand why it’s important to have supernaturalism (commands), ideas (frauds), rather than virtues (empirical goods) other than you LACK THE CULTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL MEANS OF INDOCTRINATING VIRTUES HONESTLY.

    WHY LIE????????????

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 17:30:00 UTC

  • STEPHAN: WOULD YOU HOST THIS DISCUSSION BETWEEN ME AND JORDAN PETERSON – Not a d

    STEPHAN: WOULD YOU HOST THIS DISCUSSION BETWEEN ME AND JORDAN PETERSON – Not a debate but an important discussion

    Whether pedagogy and argument by…

    – supernatural idealism (Abrahamism) or

    – supernatural analogy (our ancient supernormal religions),or

    – idealism (platonism/existential overloading, philosophy/reason overloading), or

    – parables (hyperbolic reality), or

    – description (selected stories from history)

    …produces the least bad externalities, and the most good general rules of human behavior.

    Peterson is an advocate of the use of middle eastern ‘Fictionalism’ – conflationary ‘truisms’, in pedagogy, and I’m an advocate of the european tradition of deflationary truth in pedagogy, where we do NOT conflate religion, philosophy, history, law, and, science, but apply these different means of argument as increasing degrees of precision.

    At this moment, Peterson is a popular reactionary voice because he combines science and ‘fictional’ literature. I work on deflating philosophy so that psychology, philosophy, sociology, law, and science are unified into a single language and system. Nassim Taleb is trying to discover the limits to statistical claims (which I don’t think we will be able to do without).

    But I am fairly certain that while fictionalism sells (literature), that it requires indoctrination. But science (natural law) requires only simple legislation and letting the market bring about deterministic ends.

    Reciprocity can be legislated. With Reciprocity, Operationalism and Reciprocity we can complete the scientific method and require it’s use as a means of warranty of due diligence in matters of public speech (legislation).

    If we can prevent fraud in commercial speech (irreciprocity) then we can prevent fraud in political speech (irreciprocity).

    The legal strict constructionist were almost right. Hayek was almost right. They just needed another 50 years of thought.

    (I am aware this is a lot of dense information, which is why I would prefer the three of us have this discussion. )

    Thanks.

    —BACKGROUND—

    THE RANGE OF WESTERN DEFLATIONARY METHODS OF ARGUMENT (in order)

    (gossip/priestly class)

    – Supernatural Religion,

    – myth as wisdom literature,

    – literature as wisdom literature,

    ( martial, judicial and commercial class)

    – history as wisdom literature,

    – law as a record of conflict resolutions – an empirical record of wisdom.,

    – legislation as a record of commons produced within a polity,

    ( intellectual class)

    – morality as a portfolio of rights and obligations within a polity given their group competitive strategy,

    – science as the measurement of phenomenon.

    – philosophy as the means of producing decidability [identity, utility, preference, good, truth] within contexts.

    – Truth as the means of producing decidability INDEPENDENT of contexts.

    CHINESE NON-CONFLATIONARY WISDOM LITERATURE AND ARGUMENT (in order)

    – Sun Tzu (aristocracy)

    – Confucian (Bureaucracy/Middle Class)

    – Lao Tzu (Working/Laboring class )

    – Buddhism ( mental discipline: eastern version of Stoicism )

    THE RANGE OF WORLD CONFLATIONARY MEANS OF WISDOM LITERATURE AND ARGUMENT (in order)

    – Monotheistic Religion/Pseudo-Mythology (myth, law, philosophy)

    – Rousseauian/Kantian Pseudo-rationaism and Postmodernism (Secular Religion, Philosophy, Politics, Law)

    – Cosmopolitan (Jewish) Pseudoscience (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, and the frankfurt school)

    ANALYSIS:

    There does appear to be some relation between that which is closer to dream state (free association) and that which is closer to acting state (description) in each culture. But this difference can almost universally be explained by the median ability of the population relying upon the mythos.

    I understand that stories are good. But the method, the content, and the consequence of those stories are different things. And my job is to end the problem of *externalities* produced by many small errors made many times, culminating in vast influences – many of which are catastrophic.

    THE CONVERSION FROM JUSTIFICATION(Excuse) TO CRITICISM (survival from criticism) AND THE REASONS WHY;

    We ended the era of human scale over 150 years ago, and we are today, in our works, unlike the past, not limited in ideas, or opportunities, but principally involved in the elimination of error, and saturated with methods of communicating meaning so that we can reduce our costs. And in each culture and even each class, we wish to communicate meaning using different ‘methods’ for purely habitual reasons. Yet the method we convey meaning with, functions itself, as a means of educating people in how meaning is conveyed and constructed.

    We can communicate meaning by various devices, but then once we have achieved conveyance of meaning, we must reduce error that is a byproduct of the use of analogy to experience that we use to create meaning. Meaning followed by criticism leaving leaving what we intended to convey behind.

    The problem is, we can leave artifacts of the method, behind. Leaving artifacts of history and science behind is one thing. Leaving artifacts of literature is another thing. Leaving the example of hyperbole that is so endemic to conservative thought is yet another thing. But leaving platonism and authoritarian supernaturalism is, as far as I can see, in all walks of life, disastrous for a people precisely because it it is, like alcohol, drugs, and gossip, so damaging to people and their societies.

    Now some communication struggles to leave no artifacts behind: testimony, and science. Some seeks to leave good behind: parable. But western civilization was defeated in the ancient world and in the recent modern world, by the use of wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, and overloading, the ordinary mind with information it cannot test. And in the past 150 years we have seen the use of media to use suggestion, loading, framing,and overloading to leave behind that which is not directly said. We have spent a century allowing ‘freedom of speech’ during the era of the industrialization and institutionalization of lying on a scope that neither Constantine nor Justinian could have dreamed of. They had to force the closure of the stoic schools. Other than the Italians and the Germans, Western governments put up very little resistance to the industrialization of lying.

    I’m not against literature, I’m for it. I’m just against lying: platonism and abrahamism, because they are not obviously ‘stories’, and the stories that they tell you are stories for slaves.

    I mean, why would you listen to supernatural lies, rather than hyperbolic parables? Or great events and heroes of history?

    I mean… why would you do that? Why would you need lies when the truth is sitting there?

    Why leave debilitating intellectual poisons behind – the literature of the enslaved, when we seek to create a free society?

    Why not instead, prohibit such things in pedagogy, just as we prohibit all other forms of fraud in all aspects of life: commercial, judicial, and political?

    Why do we need lies? Are we so incompetent that we cannot convey ideas through ordinary literature of extraordinary people? I don’t think so. Any number of tomes have been produced to do just that.

    I am against carrying on the damaging myths of equality and the good of democracy, rather than the goods of truth, duty, and meritocracy. But that is a whole different topic.

    The question remains, why pollute the informational commons and leave waste behind in the minds of our people, when every single sense of meaning can be conveyed by a literary device other than the platonic ideal and the authoritarian supernatural?

    Especially when the uniquenss of western civilization is that we both discovered and practice DEFLATIONARY truth and NO OTHER PEOPLE HAS.

    That’s the conversation that needs to be had.

    Because you cannot half open pandora’s box of lies. And zoroaster half opened it. And abraham broke it wide open. And islam has carried it across the world, and caused almost as much death as the black plague, bue even worse devolution of the great civilizations.

    The cosmopolitan pseudoscientific revolution, and the french pseudo-rational revolution both succeed in reforming abrahamism (loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion), and marxism caused a hundred million deaths. And if we lose western civilization to it, then what? What group still practices deflationary truth, high trust, and continuous innovation regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarch we call ‘order’?

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 17:28:00 UTC

  • SUGGESTED CONVERSATION WITH DR. PETERSON It would be interesting to discuss or d

    SUGGESTED CONVERSATION WITH DR. PETERSON

    It would be interesting to discuss or debate this rather big question with Peterson:

    Whether lying by supernaturalism (Abrahamism) or supernatural analogy (our ancient supernormal religions), or idealism (platonism/existential overloading, philosophy/reason overloading), or parables (hyperbolic reality), or description (selected stories from history) produces the least bad externalities, and the most good general rules of human behavior.

    Because I have no way of knowing whether one who finds the authoritarian supernatural and Ideal attractive is simply familiar with this kind of content like someone who grows up with country music, or whether it’s an informational difference, or a difference in cognitive ability. There does appear to be some relation between that which is closer to dream state (free association) and that which is closer to acting state (description) in each culture. But this difference can almost universally be explained by the median ability of the population relying upon the mythos.

    I understand that stories are good. But the method, the content, and the consequence of those stories are different things. And my job is to end the problem of *externalities* produced by many small errors made many times, culminating in vast influences – many of which are catastrophic.

    We ended the era of human scale over 150 years ago, and we are today, in our works, unlike the past, not limited in ideas, or opportunities, but principally involved in the elimination of error, and saturated with methods of communicating meaning so that we can reduce our costs. And in each culture and even each class, we wish to communicate meaning using different ‘methods’ for purely habitual reasons. Yet the method we convey meaning with, functions itself, as a means of educating people in how meaning is conveyed and constructed.

    We can communicate meaning by various devices, but then once we have achieved conveyance of meaning, we must reduce error that is a byproduct of the use of analogy to experience that we use to create meaning. Meaning followed by criticism leaving leaving what we intended to convey behind.

    The problem is, we can leave artifacts of the method, behind. Leaving artifacts of history and science behind is one thing. Leaving artifacts of literature is another thing. Leaving the example of hyperbole that is so endemic to conservative thought is yet another thing. But leaving platonism and authoritarian supernaturalism is, as far as I can see, in all walks of life, disastrous for a people precisely because it it is, like alcohol, drugs, and gossip, so damaging to people and their societies.

    Now some communication struggles to leave no artifacts behind: testimony, and science. Some seeks to leave good behind: parable. But western civilization was defeated in the ancient world and in the recent modern world, by the use of wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, and overloading, the ordinary mind with information it cannot test. And in the past 150 years we have seen the use of media to use suggestion, loading, framing,and overloading to leave behind that which is not directly said. We have spent a century allowing ‘freedom of speech’ during the era of the industrialization and institutionalization of lying on a scope that neither Constantine nor Justinian could have dreamed of. They had to force the closure of the stoic schools. Other than the Italians and the Germans, Western governments put up very little resistance to the industrialization of lying.

    I remember distinctly hearing church dogma on sunday mass, and saturday catechism, and reiterated by my mother – while at the same time and being saturated with anglo fairy tales, german fables, aesop’s fables, greek myths, arthurian legends, and my favorite story Pinocchio. (All before dr seuss brought jewish children’s stories into popular culture. And then as a young boy reading science fiction, and as I got older reading history.

    I’m not against literature, I’m for it. I’m just against lying: platonism and abrahamism, because they are not obviously ‘stories’, and the stories that they tell you are stories for slaves.

    I mean, why would you listen to supernatural lies, rather than hyperbolic parables? Or great events and heroes of history?

    I mean… why would you do that? Why would you need lies when the truth is sitting there?

    Why leave debilitating intellectual poisons behind – the literature of the enslaved, when we seek to create a free society?

    Why not instead, prohibit such things in pedagogy, just as we prohibit all other forms of fraud in all aspects of life: commercial, judicial, and political?

    Why do we need lies? Are we so incompetent that we cannot convey ideas through ordinary literature of extraordinary people? I don’t think so. Any number of tomes have been produced to do just that.

    I am against carrying on the damaging myths of equality and the good of democracy, rather than the goods of truth, duty, and meritocracy. But that is a whole different topic.

    The question remains, why pollute the informational commons and leave waste behind in the minds of our people, when every single sense of meaning can be conveyed by a literary device other than the platonic ideal and the authoritarian supernatural?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 19:46:00 UTC

  • “At most, Islam was a new religion only to the same extent as Lutheranism was on

    —“At most, Islam was a new religion only to the same extent as Lutheranism was one. Actually, it was the prolongation of the great early religions.”– Spengler

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 17:31:00 UTC

  • IS THE BEST, CLEAREST, MOST TESTABLE VIDEO I CAN FIND (suggest you watch) Examin

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMJRsd8SrhU#t=34.31398THIS IS THE BEST, CLEAREST, MOST TESTABLE VIDEO I CAN FIND

    (suggest you watch)

    Examining the Newest Historical Research on Islam and the Earliest Quranic Manuscripts – Jay Smith

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 16:22:00 UTC

  • The Koran was Canonized in 1924. The Koran they use today is less than 100 years

    The Koran was Canonized in 1924. The Koran they use today is less than 100 years old. My grandmother would be older than the Koran. There isn’t much of a Koran before the 9th century. There is no ‘verse’ in these early Korans.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 16:21:00 UTC