Form: Argument

  • CHRISTIANITY AND THE FUTURE OF OUR PEOPLE —“Curt Doolittle what is the subject

    CHRISTIANITY AND THE FUTURE OF OUR PEOPLE

    —“Curt Doolittle what is the subject for which a man who is a Christian is unable to detach himself from his superstitions for a movement to consider the matter from the scientific perspective you put forth?”—Mitchell Ryan

    If I understand correctly 1) abrahamic argument (lying), 2) limiting our ability to outlaw abrahamic argument (lying), 3) limiting the possibility of restoring kin “worship”(debt), and therefore our defeat of the left’s replacement if christianity with universalism (multiculturalism rather than heaven), marxist multicultural democratic socialism (rather than markets and prosperity), postmodernism’s sophism )rather than semitic supernaturalism), and feminism(rather than christian submission.) In other words, our enemy in the current world uses abrahamism today, just as our enemy used abrahamism in the ancient world – for the same ends: destruction of civilizations.

    Now, neither our deism (organization of the universal laws of nature), nor the church’s natural law, nor jesus’s teachings, when stated truthfully (scientifically) are false, or bad, nor will they produce other than the optimum good if stated scientifically. But we are in fact indebted to our ancestors, first and foremost and will not fall prey to the evils of abrahamic faith, and only repaying that debt with recognition (worship) and prohibiting the use of abrahamic deceit by lying, fraud, sophism, superstition, magic, false promise, straw man criticism of tripartism, and the natural hierarchy of meritocracy, and worship(thanks) to our ancestors and future generations, and the beauty of the natural world, and our rescue of mankind from the hostility of that universe, and our ascent into gods ourselves as we take dominion over the universe.

    Ergo, yes, if you choose, walk in jesus’ footsteps as i walk in aristotle’s, others walk in aurelius’, others walk in alexander’s, or but not those others that walk in abraham’s, or buddha’s or mohammed’s. And separate Jesus’ simple lesson from the industrialized system of semitic lies that was built around it.

    God is the name of man-yet-to-be. And jesus (the rebel) but one more of the philosophers of the ancient world like his peers zeno(the achiever), epicurus(the appreciative) and buddha(the denier), mohammed (the destroyer) trying to organize a resistance movement against the alienating pressures of markets, reason, truth, and law, and prosperity brought about by european man. Each of whom was speaking in the ancestral stories and strategy of his people, seeking to find love, and membership, and place in a world where the family, clan, and tribe, was no longer able to to provide insurance, material support, emotional, psychological feedback, and ‘safety in the pack’ amid the era’s globalization and endemic malthusian poverty.

    But the abrahamic technique of deceit produces ignorance, poverty, and dark ages, all of which prevented rather than advanced into godhood.

    Conversely, it is the natural law of western man that is most identical to the laws of the universe, and all of the prophets have been wrong.

    There is no substitute for truth, action(duty), sovereignty, reciprocity, law, markets, and the exhaustive investment in possibility those who live within them – and exhaustive persecution of those that do not.

    That I know of, you have no right to worship against the interests of your people. So if you can accommodate the combination of jesus as a philosopher to learn the optimum means of cooperation from, and our ancestors to worship in our ascent into godhood, and your people in our ascend into godhood then this is compatible with the continuous ascent of our people from beast to gods by our law – the natural law. Then that is one thing. But if you insist on the lies of the abrahamists and the method of lying of the abrahamists to do it, then it is incompatible with our law, and a hindrance to our people.

    I worship our god. I talk to our god every day. I do not know his name. I know he is the god of our people. I do not know his form. I do not know his power. I know only his counsel.

    I love the ritual of church and our festivals. Although I am keenly aware that they are the equivalent of costumed soviet stage plays – mere marxist covers over our traditional love of ancestors, the seasons, the harvests, and nature’s bounty.

    I practice christian forgiveness and charity although I am aware that it is stoicism that was absorbed by the authors of christianity into the christian religion.

    I recognize jesus as a philosopher who, through the efforts of his disciples rather than he himself, transformed by design, the egyptian, babylonian, and persian and jewish customary law – in the form of wisdom literature – into a survival and resistance against the Greco Roman world, and replaced the great heroes of Homer, and the trials of achilles with the story of the jews and the trials of jesus.

    And any man who has read both will rapidly discover that we ended up with the worst of the two, when it is merely a comparison of the strong western man (Achilles) against the weak semitic man (Jesus), with Rome playing the unconscious, unknowing, bureaucratic fool.

    Christianity was invented to destroy. That we find use in the christ figure is merely dressing up Jesus in the garb of our own gods Sol Invictus of the late roman empire, jupiter and zeus and Dzayus Pitar of our Prehistoric Founding gods.

    So where you see Jesus and God, I see but the long line of our people rotating the same one through the Aryan, Germanic, Greco, Roman, and Eastern Roman(Greeco-Anatolian-Syrian-Jewish) phases.

    Our european ancestors replaced combined their gods with those of the native-european stone age gods, as the old and the new. Then they reorganized those gods with their prophet Odin at the top. The people of old europe (the balkans, Greeks, Anatolians did not either have odin, or replace their gods. The Etruscans were at least exposed to the old gods, if not new, or odin. The romans conquered the Etru. But Combined their gods with the Greek. The semitic revolt made possible by the overextended, weakened, empire, was turned against Rome by the Eastern (Greek Empire), who got her revenge through christianity – it was the bosphorus that was the prize trade route between wooded and wet europe and arid dry west asia.

    We have but one highest god – the sun god. We just have had leaders dress him in different garb for political purposes. Lies and propaganda told by men to manipulate the ignorant, the weak, the foolish, and the stupid.

    Our ancestors invented the combination of horse, bronze, and wheel, contractualism, and heroism. And with that realization that they were no longer mere men, invented the sky gods as their aspiration.

    From them we took Sovereignty and Reciprocity (contractualism), Truth and Duty (cost of contract), The One Law of Property (Tort), and as a consequence Tripartism (fight, administer, work), Paternalism (property rights). And with that set of inventions we have in three eras done more to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, disease, suffering, and the vicissitudes of nature, and started our journey into the stars.

    And men have resisted all the way.

    So the question is, will you remain a prisoner of the lies of the abrahamists and allow your people to disappear from this earth, or will you join your people in completing our restoration, our defeat of abrahamism both old and new, and our ascent into gods we imagined.

    A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT

    I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

    As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

    I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

    I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

    I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

    As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

    And that is the objective of transcendent men we call Heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men. And we leave those unworthy behind.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-13 17:05:00 UTC

  • (c) Axioms are open to declared adaptation. (d) Laws are open to observed adapta

    (c) Axioms are open to declared adaptation. (d) Laws are open to observed adaptation. (e) science is merely the word we use for due diligence and warranty that our statements are free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, the fictionalisms, and deceit. Science=Law.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-11 15:48:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072518466073169920

    Reply addressees: @RaduBT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072376791157886976


    IN REPLY TO:

    @RaduBT

    @curtdoolittle If the axiomatic system is not evolving then it’s a dogma. With letters written in the final form (like Quran). If science had the final answer, and solved the ultimate mystery of nature (let’s say our understanding of Entropy), then the very concept of Existence would be wrong.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072376791157886976

  • CAN WE ELIMINATE RELIGION? NOT REALLY, BUT THAT REQUIRES WE DEFINE RELIGION AS M

    CAN WE ELIMINATE RELIGION? NOT REALLY, BUT THAT REQUIRES WE DEFINE RELIGION AS MARKET DEMANDS RATHER THAN THE CURRENT MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

    —“However unrealistic of a goal it might be, wouldn’t the ideal situation be a world without organised religion? Or is there some benefit to religion that I’m not seeing?”—Dann Hopkins

    Religion is just education. that’s all. Period. The ‘trick’ of both church and state is to claim church does no education, or that state education is sufficient.

    We need training in physical fitness, mindfulness, manners-ethics-morals-rituals (payments to the commons), the laws, the means of calculating that we think of as the 3R’s, the skills to run a household, and the skills for employment.

    It does not, as it once did, provide for physical fitness.

    It provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and public spheres of life.

    It provides the some of the manners, ethics, morals rituals that are the positive laws of the social order (not negative laws as is law proper).

    It provides a venue for public contract making (this is my child, this is my promise to the community, this is my mate, this is our property, this person has died and his or her property may be distributed).

    It is, to some degree, a computational necessity – meaning that it is very bad not to have that mindfulness.

    It provides child-level parables and myths which are no less a form of calculation about action in the world than are laws, logic, and mathematics.

    But there is no reason we cannot have lessons, parables and mythos and histories for each class of people at each stage of their lives, all of which contain the same messages.

    There is no reason the church rather than the school, post office, or library is not still the center of civic life, and that government is not relegated to the production and maintenance of material commons, just as we keep commerce out of religion.

    So I think I have most of this figured out – not that I am interested in the content in and of itself, but that I understand how to frame the problem, and restore the incentives, such that the second abrahamic dark age does not capture our people.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 12:04:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO APOLOGY THAT STANDS SCRUTINY I just don’t use the christian (semitic

    THERE IS NO APOLOGY THAT STANDS SCRUTINY

    I just don’t use the christian (semitic) model of thought at all. zero. I use the western (european) model of thought: Literature, History, War, Economics, Law, Science, Logic, and Mathematics. (LHWELSLM).

    I can’t read apologist literature. It’s all Abrahamism. It’s no different from marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, and was and always will be, something forced upon us, that which we struggled to escape, that which we nearly escaped, and that which we are still trying to escape.

    I do science. I don’t really do philosophy except to undrestand it’s failures. I don’t do theology except to understand its failure.

    There is no apology for sophism and supernaturalism or pseudoscience that stands scrutiny.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 10:36:00 UTC

  • SELF AUTHORING – SUPPRESSION OF MALINTUITION (suppression of the influence of co

    SELF AUTHORING – SUPPRESSION OF MALINTUITION

    (suppression of the influence of cognitive biases)

    (repost)

    —“Q: Hey Curt, do you have a thought on the use of self-affirmations to create change in the self? For example, do you consciously talk positively with yourself with the intent on changing your own perception (personal narrative) ? Or do you think such a practice of positive self-affirmation can be used as an effective way of changing one’s personal narrative?”—

    Yes, that’s the essence of self authoring and stoicism is a formal approach to it.

    Yes it works. Although you can only change to what is true and good from what is false and not good.

    Most of the time I try to talk myself into either:

    1 – ‘Be kind; be overly kind; they are only children, and doing the best they can in life.’ (It is very hard to control the autistic urge to anger and to punish perceived stupidity)

    or

    2 – ‘Keep going no matter what, no matter how hard, you always win in the end”

    or

    3 – “You can’t change that, and don’t need to, just do better in the future.”

    or

    4 – “People think about you a lot less than you imagine, and generally better than you imagine, so don’t worry about it”.

    And those are things everyone probably needs to do. I don’t have the problem of ‘don’t take it personally’. I’m not agreeable enough to be affected by others. when they are wrong, only when I have been wrong.

    I have a lot of guilt about my occasionally losing tolerance for mortals and losing battle with my autism and hurting or disappointing people I care about; my divorce and one other relationship i should have handled better (i was very ill in both circumstances); underperforming for my investors. And the only one of those I can fix is my investors.

    cheers

    (edit)

    The only thing I would add is “What is the worst that can happen?” I think this is the advice people thank me for the most. If we are too concerned with failure to take risks that do not harm us,then we unnecessarily pass on opportunities for success. People forgive failure in pursuit of moral ends. failure in and of itself if costing nothing harmful or immoral is a good thing – we learn from it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 00:24:00 UTC

  • CONTRA WEINSTEIN VS DAWKINS I would love to have this debate because the alterna

    CONTRA WEINSTEIN VS DAWKINS

    I would love to have this debate because the alternative is that while we have a natural neurological demand for stories (frames) the world has solved for the satisfaction of demand, and one can solve for the satisfaction of that demand by a host of means – some of which have entirely positive externalities, and some of which have entirely negative externalities. Some of which are in fact eugenic, and some of which are in fact dysgenic – a disease, or cancer. In other words, we SURVIVE some religions, but those religions that we survive appear to have been reproductively successful for that which does not lead to ends that put our survival under our CONTROL: domestication. And while a relativist might say ‘well evolution doesn’t make that distinction’ – saying so would be incompatible with (a) self determination of group or man, (b) the evidence that we achieve what we do through self and other ‘domestication’, or (c) that those who achieve the most domestication are responsible for dragging mankind out of his animal condition into his human rational condition with which he control his destiny (survival), in a universe arguably hostile to (costly) sentient life.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-07 20:58:00 UTC

  • HOW TO ARGUE WITH THE HERD: “SEPARATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUBJUGATION” (but witho

    HOW TO ARGUE WITH THE HERD: “SEPARATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUBJUGATION”

    (but without separation subjugation is not only necessary, but unavoidable.)

    From The Other Half:

    —“Hi Curt, Thanks for your answer. I’m happy to be thought an Abrahamist, Abraham being a man who defied the moral rules of his tribe in obedience to an inner voice, as the artists who gave us the Western canon have always done. You strategically left the artist out of your taxonomy in #5 above, but included him as a mystic and escapist in #7. The fact that you can’t see a difference between mysticism and escapism says to me that my secular theology can encompass your materialism, but the latter can only deal with my position by reducing and trivializing it. You say you’re seeking to understand and improve the world, but I see Marxist levels of hubris and folly in the assumption that you can understand and improve it with the limited equipment you’re using viz. mathematics and economics. …. Your morality as I understand it is imposed by authority and obeyed by people who don’t want the responsibility of thinking about situations that don’t admit of binary answers, whereas the morality of the artist is internally generated by a part of him that is not his sociological self. This morality is what true sovereignty looks like, though few of us are capable of it at this point in our development as it involves the willingness to be in a minority of one. Hence the temptation of authoritarian answers to postmodern anomie. Ironically, your assumption that art is the arena of competing, positive moral norms is one that you share with the postmodernists, even if they prefer the term ideology to morality. ….. In contrast, Mailer’s line about the key to the universe being a metaphor and not a measure, recognises that artists are always smarter than ideologues and moralists. The line was in fact written in response to the first moon landing, a technological achievement of the kind of computing intelligence you apply to everything, and an example of how poorly materialists imagine transcendence of present problems. Launching a phallic rocket at the moon just to be the first one to do it is trivially heroic when set beside the world’s mythologies and literatures in which the moon was a goddess who punishes transgression as Diana did Actaeon’s, though I’m sure few people at NASA worried about the ramifications in the collective unconscious of their achievement. America’s subsequent hegemony and the atomisation of the body politic won’t I think be undone by propertarianism except possibly in a parodic way. A real body politic would have to be held together by a morality that comes from the inner life that you don’t believe in, where we reckon with sexual difference in a way that doesn’t involve subjugation.”—John Tangney

    “SEPARATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUBJUGATION.”

    Paragraph one makes no argument it consists of straw manning and critique. to propose and argument you would have to construct one that states that Physical Fitness, Training in the Virtues (self authoring), literature, history, law, economics, science, logic, and mathematics have, must, or can produce worse outcomes than Mysticism, Occult, sophism, pseudoscience, philosophy and theology. I mean. I’ve done the work. that won’t happen. The second argument you’d have to make is that you aren’t simply covering for low, sexual, social, economic, political, and military value and simply self medicating your way out of reality. The third that you’re not using self medication, justifying it, and demanding others pay for it.

    A’ll I”m saying is that separation between the feminine (you) and the masculine (us) group strategies is beneficial to both, but if not beneficial can be solved by conquest, prosecution, and law. But that is better than another dark age of ignorance produced by people like yourself addicted and demonstrating addiction responses, to self medication.

    Achievement is superior to self medication. That is a judgement. And since I am not willing to let you spread addiction to self medication to future generations as people like you did in the past, destroying the great civilizations and bringing about a dark age of dysgeneia poverty disease and ignorance, the there are only a few choices for people like me and people like you: Extermination, Conquest and rule, Separation, or surrender.

    History shows that for europeans, trying to domesticate others turns out to be our end through outbreeding since the majority underclass wins. Ergo, separation.

    We were speciating (races) before agrarianism. Agrarianism is over. We can easily return to speciation – we can afford to. Hence, separate, prosper, and gradually speciate.

    I have no problem leaving you and yours (the herd) behind, while me and mine (many packs), continue to drag ourselves into the gods you need to govern you. 😉

    Upon separation, all the 20th century will have done is assisted in the ‘culling’ of our remaining undomesticated demi-humans. It will advanced our evolutionary progress by two thousand years. (HOw is that for a counter-proposition of our inequality, undesirability of defective and defectors, and our disgust at cohabitation with you. 😉

    Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate. May the best group win.

    – Cheers

    BTW: my background is in fine art. In fact, I’m teaching a class on art starting next semester. And as usual it will be as good or better than the best universities. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-07 13:19:00 UTC

  • Steve.. Correct. But that does not mean that there is not one most parsimonious

    Steve.. Correct. But that does not mean that there is not one most parsimonious paradigm (truth). Only that we converge on or diverge from by the market for theories and falsifications. We appear to be doing quite well at anything we can test.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-06 23:09:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070817432598667264

    Reply addressees: @SteveStuWill

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069756255835586560


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069756255835586560

  • Women favor their own children very highly at the expense of all others. Women d

    Women favor their own children very highly at the expense of all others. Women demonstrate very little care for their males. Men demonstrate care for themselves, ttheir women and their offspring (pack)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-03 17:56:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069651661017280515

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069627574807076865


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    @curtdoolittle Don’t people usually choose BOTH equalitarianism AND kin selection? They appeal to equalitarian sentiments in us & demonstrate kin preference for their own. OP only applies to those who fall for it. But that’s only self-serving in a few cases, maybe none in the long term…

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1069627574807076865

  • WHY DO WOMEN UNDERMINE THE CIVILIZATION and CULTURE, the INSTITUTIONS, and MALES

    WHY DO WOMEN UNDERMINE THE CIVILIZATION and CULTURE, the INSTITUTIONS, and MALES?

    (important explanations)

    —“…what kind of evolutionary pressure would create a desire to undermine the ingroup. All the plausible explanations I’ve seen had to do with abusing female impulses that have evolved for entirely different purposes….”—Martin Štěpán

    Females undermine the concentration of power in alphas in order to preserve some control over their reproductive choice and access to resources and male-provisioned resources, including defense. ie: females can barter attention, effort, care, and sex if they have control of the attention economy. Which is why females are so conscious (and gay men evidencing it) of attention and approval and agreeableness.

    So just as females operate on a status and attention economy, they fight within that economy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, moralizing, undermining, and reputation destruction.

    And decreasing the number of females is not necessarily in their disinterest – so literally killing off other females increases remaining female market value, so that his the strategy females pursue: that of Hens.

    Undermining the males (‘sh-t testing’) is useful both at the level of insuring the ‘fitness’ of males in defending them, preserving their ability to choose, assisting them in outing ‘cheaters’ (which women are terrible at, and men excel at), maximizing cost of (returns on) their attention, care, and sex.

    The only problem here is that women still sexually select for males as if we are under those conditions of hunter gatherers. And this explains the attraction of women to more primitive (less domesticated) groups of males with lower agency despite that the female condition is dependent upon those of us with higher agency, innovation, and adaptivity.

    Hence the necessity of more domesticated (higher agency) males of defending the ingroup females from conquest or even exposure to, lower agency, higher aggression, males. (FWIW:Delayed marriage provides women with greater reproductive certainty, and therefore greater sortition, and greater formation of genetic castes, and therefore greater speciation – hence white people.)

    Males conversely, operate on the physical equivalent of the warfare economy, and so losses of males weakens the pack, and dilution of the ingroup male genes weakens male reproductive (evolutionary) persistence, as well as reverses domestication (evolution of agency).

    I could write on this subject for hours by just weaving through male and female behavior at all levels. And doing so only further demonstrates Acquisitionism and the need for Testimonialism and Natural Law to preserve the Western Advantage given the destructive influences of women.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-01 09:34:00 UTC