(FB 1550233498 Timestamp) DO WE POSITIVELY DISAMBIGUATE OR AMBIGUATE IN DEFENSE? —“I think it’s insulting for idealists to be associated with Evola. It’s not primacy of consciousness, it’s not Kant. It’s sword-and-sorcery. People who say that Evola introduced them to philosophy weren’t introduced to it at all; they were just stalled and set up for humiliation if they ever decided to argue with a philosophical opponent. They should read Heidegger instead if they insist on living outside of reality, but even he might prove too profane and earthly for their liking.”—by Göran Dahl CURTD: Correct. But this is the problem tho: unless taught the direct road, people must take what road that is easiest to follow given their experience. And they always and everywhere move from the emotive to the analytic – slowly for reasons anyone familiar with artificial intelligence and neurology can explain: more neural christmas tree lights go on with emotion until you have enough information to light them without it. And there is the rub: do we disambiguate, and suppress conflation between literature (analogy) and thought (philosophy, history) and teach stoicism and the law (which is intuitive). Or do we make a via-positiva claim about philosophy, religion, occult, and maintain conflation and ‘ambiguation’. This is the problem with differences between anglo-scandinavian, franco-german continental, and italian peoples We get better intellectuals out of italy in the south, and england in the north, and better engineers, craftsmen, and citizens in germany. But why? Genetically we are all germanic (european) peoples. So the general argument is that we must ‘program’ good behavior into people (germany good, france bad) by educating their intuition with emotion, teaching them mindfulness, and teaching them the law. purely out of defense against those who lie. Education is just as defensive as it is opportunity generating.
Form: Argument
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550271669 Timestamp) SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSCIENCE Fictions can be used for the purpose of meaning when we cannot model the underlying complexity in mind. Fictions can also be used to deceive. —“Max Tegmark says that consciousness is a ânew form of matterâ Theoretical physics is basically just metaphysics. Everettian multiverse is basically metaphysics Bohmian mechanics is metaphysics because it has unknown variables in the math A-theory of time is metaphysics because it needs new physics such as the ether”— Yes these are metaphysical statements meaning that they are NONSENSE statements, precisely because there is no discipline of metaphysics, only that category of nonsense we call metaphysics. In other words, metaphysics is a name we use for a category of sophism we call pseudoscience. There is neither a discipline (grammar) of pseudoscience nor metaphysics, any more than there is a discipline (grammar) of ghost studies. It is just a name for sophisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and the occult.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550420564 Timestamp) CHRISTIANS ARE NATURAL LEFTISTS Christians were always the ally of the left – there reason for the war against the south, the reason for immigration, the reason for ‘civil rights’. The christians only moved to the ‘right’ once they understood that the state wanted to become the new religion in the franco-jewish-soviet model. Christianity is not nationalist, is not particularist, is not masculine, is not heroic, is not militaristic, expansionary, truthful, sovereign. It’s antithetical to the west: a purely semitic cult. It was the church’s necessity of accommodating the aristocracy that made our people survive christianity and made the claims of something other than destruction of our people possible. They are not members of the libertarian or right. Instead, libertarians and the right give ‘nod’ to christians the way men give ‘nod’ to women, and value christianity the way men value women. But Christians are not ‘men’ , nor ‘european’ but simply semitic (female strategy) of resistance, undermining, and dysgenia.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550426714 Timestamp) WHY MEN WILL FIGHT Men will not fight for christianity. That is evident. Christian faith is and has been, a pacifier that brings conquest. Yes, men will include christianity in what they will fight for. They will fight primarily for the material restoration of their way of life for them and their children first. and they will fight for altruistic punishment – a high cost of punishing the immoral opposition. This is our message and our policy. Those of us who are post-theological, post philosophical, and scientific, and favor our natural religion will not fight for christianity, but we will fight for your freedom to practice. There is every evidence men will fight for the material, and simply ‘virtue signal’ everything else as means of cooperation on the optimum POSSIBLE END, not the impossible IDEAL end. So we who will fight will do so, and christians are just virtue signaling. There will be only islam extermination and poverty if we lose. There will be christianity, heathanism, philosophy, science, law, the restoration of our civilization, our families, our people, if we win. If that is not good enough for you then you don’t matter. You are no better than the enemy. Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550448812 Timestamp) CLARITY (a) only individuals act (b) only groups conspire (c) whether individuals or groups act against the interests of the commons, it is still a collection of individuals, since even groups consist of individuals. (d) organizations demonstrate preference not stated belief or thought. (e) if some organization or affiliation or identity can be identified as problematic it is certainly possible to exit the organization and all people within it as conspirators regardless of stated opinion or belief. CONVERSELY (f) it is very difficult to imagine extracting someone by genome. HOWEVER (g) war is war, so if it escalates from tort (court) to combat (war) then the law no longer applies. THEREFORE I have said repeatedly, fix the law the good will stay the bad will leave, and organizations that are hostile will be shuttered.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550448812 Timestamp) CLARITY (a) only individuals act (b) only groups conspire (c) whether individuals or groups act against the interests of the commons, it is still a collection of individuals, since even groups consist of individuals. (d) organizations demonstrate preference not stated belief or thought. (e) if some organization or affiliation or identity can be identified as problematic it is certainly possible to exit the organization and all people within it as conspirators regardless of stated opinion or belief. CONVERSELY (f) it is very difficult to imagine extracting someone by genome. HOWEVER (g) war is war, so if it escalates from tort (court) to combat (war) then the law no longer applies. THEREFORE I have said repeatedly, fix the law the good will stay the bad will leave, and organizations that are hostile will be shuttered.
-
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 1550764294 Timestamp) WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.) (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.) ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.) (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.) ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.) ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.) (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. ) (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. ) (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence. (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.) (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.) (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.) (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.) (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism. (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550764294 Timestamp) WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.) (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.) ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.) (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.) ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.) ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.) (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. ) (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. ) (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence. (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.) (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.) (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.) (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.) (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism. (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550854513 Timestamp) ALL RELIGION IS PREDICATED ON DEBT, WITH ONLY THE FIRST RELIGION (THE DEAD, NATURE) TRUE. THE LIE The Xian/Jian/Mian lies: false debt for false crime, with false promise of reward false reward. THE TRUTH
- The universe is in fact what enabled man.
Ancestors are in fact what got us here.
The only debts we owe are:
– nature/planet/the universe. (in truth) – our ancestors, who made us possible (in truth) – exemplary ancestors who made us possible (with truth) – our peers who persist the gains of our ancestors. (in truth) WHY THE LIE All gods are lies by those lacking memory of worthy ancestors or worthy ancestors whatsoever. WE NEED NOT LIE We are the gods among men. And the fake gods were invented to undermine us.