Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • No Anarchism Is a Fantasy, Rule of Law Is Not

    —“Which kind of Anarchist are we talking about? There’s many varieties, though the most common, and commonly associated with the term, are Anarcho-Communists. The mental gymnastics required to create such an oxymoron as the combination of something that relies on the existence of a totalitarian government, and a total absence of government, makes it pretty obvious why it fails so damned always. Anatcho-Capitalists, of which I am a former supporter of, are extremely similar to Propertarians in many regards.”— Anon

    It doesn’t matter. All humans universally demonstrate the minimum moral constraint that they can get away with. People come together in proximity to reduce opportunity costs making the disproportionate returns on a division of labor possible. The state evolves universally to suppress local parasitism, centralize costs, in exchange for the reduction of transaction and opportunity costs. The use of taxation (fees for suppression free riding, socialization of losses, consumption of commons, parasitism and predation) to produce investments in the returns on commons (infrastructure, parks, etc) allows markets (polities) to compete with other polities for people, families, trade, investment, and those ‘top’ people who produce private excellences (mansions, shops) that as a consequence increase the returns on those commons. The only ‘anarchy’ is in the ‘borderlands’ where one benefits from free riding on the productivity of those markets but doesn’t pay the cost of behavioral, economic, tax, political, conformity to the standards of those commons. Thats why the Russians moved the jews into the pale. Thats where anarchic ‘ethics’ if you want to call them that, come from. Women depend on men, men depend on each other, and together they depend on the organization provided by court, military, and state. But anarchists, like children, like women, are oblivious to the fact that men are required to create their choices, just like anarchist require states to create their anarchies. That is why anarchies of any kind always exist in borderlands as subjects of states and empires. States tolerate borderlands because ‘border people’ give the state plausible deniability for territorial possession (keeping territorial stock in inventory) without bearing a cost of investment in commons political organization, or even much defense. Anarchic polities cannot compete to hold territory (scarce inventory) in competition with commons producers, since the returns on commons like the returns on cooperation and trade, are disproportionately advantageous. In other words, you can’t have commons for free. If you want anarchy you’re left with Alaska, Siberia, and the south pole at present. And it will only get worse.

  • A scientist testifies

    A scientist testifies A philosopher opines A theologian recites Testimony: The secret of western civilization. === Andrew M Gilmour So what are the prerequisites for honest/truthful testimony? Ontic: Realism (Domain, Category, property/quality, Genea) Epistemic: Empirical (external verification) Logical: correspondent (comparison, relational) Grammatical: Etymologically consistent Rhetorical: Honesty (witnessing, due diligence) I think i’m getting closer. === Andrew ; you’re getting stuck because you’re trying to map law (realism, action ) to philosophy (idealism, words) and philosophy is insufficient for the task. TRY THIS: Metaphysics: Premises (Action, Actionability) … Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuition, and reason, and mind as motion (no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Grammars: Communication, Speech: (Actions) … Meaning, … Stories, Explanation, Justification, … [List: Deflationary, Descriptive, Inflationary Grammars] Epistemology: Adversarialism (Actions) … Falsification, Due Dilligence … Three phases, … … 1 – discovery, … … 2 – due diligence, … … 3 – testimony: … 1. Epistemology – Discovery process): … Free association > Test ( Reason) > NextOrFail … … Hypothesis > Test (Calculation) > NextOrFail … … … Theory > Test (Action) > NextOrFail … … … … Theory > Test (Market) > NextOrFail … … … … … Law > Fail … 2. Epistemology – Due Diligence process) … Adversarial Survival by tests of … … Complete Sentences … … In promissory form … … In operational vocabulary (as actions) … … absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…) … … including all changes in state … … including all consequences of change in state … … from an observer’s point of view … … producing a series of testable transactions. … Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is: … Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, … in The Series: … … Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences) … … Internally Consistent (Logical) … … Externally Correspondent (Empirical) … … Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) … … Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame) … … Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) … With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) … Warrantied … … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: … Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; … Error and failure of Due Diligence; … Bias and Wishful Thinking; … And the many Deceits of: … … (a) Loading and Framing; … … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions). … In Defense or Advocacy Of: … Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … … (a) productive … … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability … … (d) voluntary … … (e) free of externality of the same criteria … Including but Not Limited To … The Series of: … … (a) murder, … … (b) harm, damage, theft, … … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard … … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, … … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, … … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience), … … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding), … … (h) conquest (war). … 3. Epistemology – Testimony process. … … Adversarial competition between Search and Test. … … Search Criteria … … … Narrative … … Test Criteria … … … Operationalism: Actions … … … … Testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement, consisting of a fully accounting, of a series of transactions (stories) of changes in state.)

  • A scientist testifies

    A scientist testifies A philosopher opines A theologian recites Testimony: The secret of western civilization. === Andrew M Gilmour So what are the prerequisites for honest/truthful testimony? Ontic: Realism (Domain, Category, property/quality, Genea) Epistemic: Empirical (external verification) Logical: correspondent (comparison, relational) Grammatical: Etymologically consistent Rhetorical: Honesty (witnessing, due diligence) I think i’m getting closer. === Andrew ; you’re getting stuck because you’re trying to map law (realism, action ) to philosophy (idealism, words) and philosophy is insufficient for the task. TRY THIS: Metaphysics: Premises (Action, Actionability) … Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuition, and reason, and mind as motion (no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Grammars: Communication, Speech: (Actions) … Meaning, … Stories, Explanation, Justification, … [List: Deflationary, Descriptive, Inflationary Grammars] Epistemology: Adversarialism (Actions) … Falsification, Due Dilligence … Three phases, … … 1 – discovery, … … 2 – due diligence, … … 3 – testimony: … 1. Epistemology – Discovery process): … Free association > Test ( Reason) > NextOrFail … … Hypothesis > Test (Calculation) > NextOrFail … … … Theory > Test (Action) > NextOrFail … … … … Theory > Test (Market) > NextOrFail … … … … … Law > Fail … 2. Epistemology – Due Diligence process) … Adversarial Survival by tests of … … Complete Sentences … … In promissory form … … In operational vocabulary (as actions) … … absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…) … … including all changes in state … … including all consequences of change in state … … from an observer’s point of view … … producing a series of testable transactions. … Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is: … Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, … in The Series: … … Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences) … … Internally Consistent (Logical) … … Externally Correspondent (Empirical) … … Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) … … Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame) … … Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) … With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) … Warrantied … … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: … Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; … Error and failure of Due Diligence; … Bias and Wishful Thinking; … And the many Deceits of: … … (a) Loading and Framing; … … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions). … In Defense or Advocacy Of: … Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … … (a) productive … … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability … … (d) voluntary … … (e) free of externality of the same criteria … Including but Not Limited To … The Series of: … … (a) murder, … … (b) harm, damage, theft, … … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard … … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, … … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, … … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience), … … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding), … … (h) conquest (war). … 3. Epistemology – Testimony process. … … Adversarial competition between Search and Test. … … Search Criteria … … … Narrative … … Test Criteria … … … Operationalism: Actions … … … … Testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement, consisting of a fully accounting, of a series of transactions (stories) of changes in state.)

  • Controversial Opinion: Romans (Europeans) Were Gods

    Controversial Opinion: Romans (Europeans) Were Gods The roman emperors were promoted as gods since gods were all group’s (peoples) proxies for the group, and devotion to the gods was a devotion to the anthropomorphization of the people: it was the expression of loyalty. The roman demand was for loyalty to the empire, and the roman way of life, that so man wished to join – just as people wish to join the european way of life yet again today. But at some point lesser peoples want the benefits of roman-european way of life without the demand for loyalty in exchange. This is for very simple reasons: they and their traditional methods are unable to compete for income, sexual, social, and political status – so they refuse loyalty and undermine that civilization despite wanting its benefits. Truth is – comparatively? The Romans were gods.

  • Controversial Opinion: Romans (Europeans) Were Gods

    Controversial Opinion: Romans (Europeans) Were Gods The roman emperors were promoted as gods since gods were all group’s (peoples) proxies for the group, and devotion to the gods was a devotion to the anthropomorphization of the people: it was the expression of loyalty. The roman demand was for loyalty to the empire, and the roman way of life, that so man wished to join – just as people wish to join the european way of life yet again today. But at some point lesser peoples want the benefits of roman-european way of life without the demand for loyalty in exchange. This is for very simple reasons: they and their traditional methods are unable to compete for income, sexual, social, and political status – so they refuse loyalty and undermine that civilization despite wanting its benefits. Truth is – comparatively? The Romans were gods.

  • The Religious Personality

    SUMMARY 1. Demand for the services of religion vs a business, guild, political org, band or army, reflects gender differences in personality traits. 2. There are many methods of obtaining those emotional services. 3. Children must be indoctrinated into a religion or educated into one of those methods. Religion isn’t necessarily necessary – only the services s provided by it. And even then both masculine and feminine services are necessary. This explains the ‘depression’ of modern man when women (feminists) destroyed all the male alternatives to religion by allowing women into them. “Add one woman to a room of men and it converts from a pack (army) to a society (family), depriving all men of the value of it.” As far as we know the origin of organized religion is the initiatic brotherhood of warriors. Other sought the same ‘experience’ by imitation. EXPLANATION The science is out there for everyone to see and takes zero effort to find, if you have even a basic understanding of the sciences. Adversarialism, Evidence, Realism, Naturalism, Testimony, are as old as our people – we were metal smiths and warriors with military epistemology. Aristotle is clearly following our ancient tradition of adversarialism, evidence, realism, naturalism, and testimony and was merely limited by the available knowledge. That we retroactively recategorize this first as empirical then as scientific is simply another example of earlier peoples limited by available knowledge, sufficient to disambiguate the category of investigation in search of explanation, such that we have greater agency, and greater agency to organize others for collective agency. The Logical Facility (constant relations), Reason ( comparison and permutation), Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), Computation (algorithms), and Adversarialism (speech, argument, action) are all possible for man. What separates philosophy, dependent on verbalisms (verbal, textual, scriptural) interpretation, from science (evidence from demonstration, action) is what separates imagination and words from observation and actions. Idealism(Platonism-fiction) and Mythology(theology-fiction) are merely an effort (Deception) to circumvent operationalism, because operationalism requires demonstrated knowledge, and analysis of the possibilities and costs of construction. Action(Science) is an expensive method of mindfulness, with high chance of falsification. Philosophy(Words) is a cheap means of achieving mindfulness by verbalisms, with a low chance of falsification. Theology(Emotion) is the cheapest means of achieving mindfulness, with no chance of falsification. Why do we gravitate to Action, Philosophy, or Theology? It reflects our degree of agency or it causes our degree of agency. Why? Because we lack the courage and agency to face the high investment in the possibility of failure (science), the low investment low possibility of failure (philosophy), and no investment and no possibility of failure (theology). (You make this mistake all time time Rik. You use words as anchors as if they define the universe, rather than measurements of the universe that may be precise, sufficient for the purpose, and true or imprecise, insufficient for the purpose, and false.) People who feel the need for religion, do so because they have a need for failure-free social interaction, conformity, and order. The Religious Personality: Strong bias to Low Dominance (aggression) Strong bias to Agreeableness (and empathy, compassion) Strong bias to Contentiousness Slight bias to Extroversion Bias to low Neuroticism (contrary to freud, jung) Bias to Low openness Slight bias to lower intelligence Intelligence: atheists have about 1/2 standard deviation or six to seven points of aggregate IQ. There is a correlation between negative openness and intelligence, so this is to be expected, but it’s not meaningful since the primary difference in religiosity is not intelligence but intuition given personality traits.

    —“mature religiosity and spirituality were associated with high Openness to Experience, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and with low Neuroticism.”— —“Religious fundamentalism was associated with higher Agreeableness, and lower Neuroticism and lower Openness to Experience.”— —” Extrinsic religiosity was associated with higher Neuroticism but unrelated to the other personality factors. Levels of Neuroticism among religiousness vary, with European samples exhibiting higher levels than in the United States, which was speculated to be due to the dominance of Catholicism in European samples.”— —“Traits such as femininity and conservatism have both been linked to religiosity, such that those who scored higher on religiousness were likely to also score higher for femininity and conservatism”– —“Religiosity was negatively correlated with traits relating to sexual expression, such as eroticism, sexiness, and sensuality, such that individuals who scored higher on religiosity tended to score lower on these factors of sexuality”— —“Humorousness has also been negatively correlated with religiosity, such that individuals who scored higher on religiousness tended to score lower on humorousness.”—

    THE RESULT???? This set of biases describes the female bias in emotion and cognition. There you go. As I’ve said. Christianity (peace) is a feminine religion for the feminine personality. Paganism and Heroism (war) are masculine religions for masculine personalities, and it is exactly these differences that demonstrate how those religions spread. CATHOLICS Higher neuroticism but this is probably a class factor. ORTHODOX

    –“Introverts are more likely to be atheists…. A large portion of Greek Orthodox is ISTJ as well.”–

    Important: data suggests that orthodoxy can survive in the masculine mind (I suspect that is because unlike western christianity, it avoided the philosophical reformation and the battle with science, and remains ritualistic (action oriented) rather than pseudo-intellectual. ISLAM:

    —“Data showed that basic religious beliefs have a significant negative correlation with neuroticism (r=-0.29),and a significant positive relationship with extraversion(r=0.28),openness(r=0.14),agreeableness (r=0.29),and conscientiousness (r=0.48). Also, the results of the regression analysis showed that basic religious beliefs can anticipate neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, but they cannot anticipate the openness factor significantly.”—

    Y’all can hate me for the truth. But the truth is how we solve the problem. We need more services in addition to religion. Because only feminine biased personality can tolerate the high cost of denial of reality in exchange for the frictionless extroverted experience of religion.

  • The Religious Personality

    SUMMARY 1. Demand for the services of religion vs a business, guild, political org, band or army, reflects gender differences in personality traits. 2. There are many methods of obtaining those emotional services. 3. Children must be indoctrinated into a religion or educated into one of those methods. Religion isn’t necessarily necessary – only the services s provided by it. And even then both masculine and feminine services are necessary. This explains the ‘depression’ of modern man when women (feminists) destroyed all the male alternatives to religion by allowing women into them. “Add one woman to a room of men and it converts from a pack (army) to a society (family), depriving all men of the value of it.” As far as we know the origin of organized religion is the initiatic brotherhood of warriors. Other sought the same ‘experience’ by imitation. EXPLANATION The science is out there for everyone to see and takes zero effort to find, if you have even a basic understanding of the sciences. Adversarialism, Evidence, Realism, Naturalism, Testimony, are as old as our people – we were metal smiths and warriors with military epistemology. Aristotle is clearly following our ancient tradition of adversarialism, evidence, realism, naturalism, and testimony and was merely limited by the available knowledge. That we retroactively recategorize this first as empirical then as scientific is simply another example of earlier peoples limited by available knowledge, sufficient to disambiguate the category of investigation in search of explanation, such that we have greater agency, and greater agency to organize others for collective agency. The Logical Facility (constant relations), Reason ( comparison and permutation), Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), Computation (algorithms), and Adversarialism (speech, argument, action) are all possible for man. What separates philosophy, dependent on verbalisms (verbal, textual, scriptural) interpretation, from science (evidence from demonstration, action) is what separates imagination and words from observation and actions. Idealism(Platonism-fiction) and Mythology(theology-fiction) are merely an effort (Deception) to circumvent operationalism, because operationalism requires demonstrated knowledge, and analysis of the possibilities and costs of construction. Action(Science) is an expensive method of mindfulness, with high chance of falsification. Philosophy(Words) is a cheap means of achieving mindfulness by verbalisms, with a low chance of falsification. Theology(Emotion) is the cheapest means of achieving mindfulness, with no chance of falsification. Why do we gravitate to Action, Philosophy, or Theology? It reflects our degree of agency or it causes our degree of agency. Why? Because we lack the courage and agency to face the high investment in the possibility of failure (science), the low investment low possibility of failure (philosophy), and no investment and no possibility of failure (theology). (You make this mistake all time time Rik. You use words as anchors as if they define the universe, rather than measurements of the universe that may be precise, sufficient for the purpose, and true or imprecise, insufficient for the purpose, and false.) People who feel the need for religion, do so because they have a need for failure-free social interaction, conformity, and order. The Religious Personality: Strong bias to Low Dominance (aggression) Strong bias to Agreeableness (and empathy, compassion) Strong bias to Contentiousness Slight bias to Extroversion Bias to low Neuroticism (contrary to freud, jung) Bias to Low openness Slight bias to lower intelligence Intelligence: atheists have about 1/2 standard deviation or six to seven points of aggregate IQ. There is a correlation between negative openness and intelligence, so this is to be expected, but it’s not meaningful since the primary difference in religiosity is not intelligence but intuition given personality traits.

    —“mature religiosity and spirituality were associated with high Openness to Experience, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and with low Neuroticism.”— —“Religious fundamentalism was associated with higher Agreeableness, and lower Neuroticism and lower Openness to Experience.”— —” Extrinsic religiosity was associated with higher Neuroticism but unrelated to the other personality factors. Levels of Neuroticism among religiousness vary, with European samples exhibiting higher levels than in the United States, which was speculated to be due to the dominance of Catholicism in European samples.”— —“Traits such as femininity and conservatism have both been linked to religiosity, such that those who scored higher on religiousness were likely to also score higher for femininity and conservatism”– —“Religiosity was negatively correlated with traits relating to sexual expression, such as eroticism, sexiness, and sensuality, such that individuals who scored higher on religiosity tended to score lower on these factors of sexuality”— —“Humorousness has also been negatively correlated with religiosity, such that individuals who scored higher on religiousness tended to score lower on humorousness.”—

    THE RESULT???? This set of biases describes the female bias in emotion and cognition. There you go. As I’ve said. Christianity (peace) is a feminine religion for the feminine personality. Paganism and Heroism (war) are masculine religions for masculine personalities, and it is exactly these differences that demonstrate how those religions spread. CATHOLICS Higher neuroticism but this is probably a class factor. ORTHODOX

    –“Introverts are more likely to be atheists…. A large portion of Greek Orthodox is ISTJ as well.”–

    Important: data suggests that orthodoxy can survive in the masculine mind (I suspect that is because unlike western christianity, it avoided the philosophical reformation and the battle with science, and remains ritualistic (action oriented) rather than pseudo-intellectual. ISLAM:

    —“Data showed that basic religious beliefs have a significant negative correlation with neuroticism (r=-0.29),and a significant positive relationship with extraversion(r=0.28),openness(r=0.14),agreeableness (r=0.29),and conscientiousness (r=0.48). Also, the results of the regression analysis showed that basic religious beliefs can anticipate neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, but they cannot anticipate the openness factor significantly.”—

    Y’all can hate me for the truth. But the truth is how we solve the problem. We need more services in addition to religion. Because only feminine biased personality can tolerate the high cost of denial of reality in exchange for the frictionless extroverted experience of religion.

  • THE RELIGIOUS PERSONALITY Summary 1. Demand for the services of religion vs a bu

    THE RELIGIOUS PERSONALITY

    Summary

    1. Demand for the services of religion vs a business, guild, political org, band or army, reflects gender differences in personality traits.

    2. There are many methods of obtaining those emotional services.

    3. Children must be indoctrinated into a religion or educated into one of those methods. Religion isn’t necessarily necessary – only the services s provided by it. And even then both masculine and feminine services are necessary. This explains the ‘depression’ of modern man when women (feminists) destroyed all the male alternatives to religion by allowing women into them. “Add one woman to a room of men and it converts from a pack (army) to a society (family), depriving all men of the value of it.” As far as we know the origin of organized religion is the initiatic brotherhood of warriors. Other sought the same ‘experience’ by imitation.

    EXPLANATION

    The science is out there for everyone to see and takes zero effort to find, if you have even a basic understanding of the sciences.

    Adversarialism, Evidence, Realism, Naturalism, Testimony, are as old as our people – we were metal smiths and warriors with military epistemology. Aristotle is clearly following our ancient tradition of adversarialism, evidence, realism, naturalism, and testimony and was merely limited by the available knowledge.

    That we retroactively recategorize this first as empirical then as scientific is simply another example of earlier peoples limited by available knowledge, sufficient to disambiguate the category of investigation in search of explanation, such that we have greater agency, and greater agency to organize others for collective agency.

    The Logical Facility (constant relations), Reason ( comparison and permutation), Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), Computation (algorithms), and Adversarialism (speech, argument, action) are all possible for man. What separates philosophy, dependent on verbalisms (verbal, textual, scriptural) interpretation, from science (evidence from demonstration, action) is what separates imagination and words from observation and actions.

    Idealism(Platonism-fiction) and Mythology(theology-fiction) are merely an effort (Deception) to circumvent operationalism, because operationalism requires demonstrated knowledge, and analysis of the possibilities and costs of construction.

    Action(Science) is an expensive method of mindfulness, with high chance of falsification. Philosophy(Words) is a cheap means of achieving mindfulness by verbalisms, with a low chance of falsification. Theology(Emotion) is the cheapest means of achieving mindfulness, with no chance of falsification.

    Why do we gravitate to Action, Philosophy, or Theology? It reflects our degree of agency or it causes our degree of agency. Why? Because we lack the courage and agency to face the high investment in the possibility of failure (science), the low investment low possibility of failure (philosophy), and no investment and no possibility of failure (theology).

    (You make this mistake all time time Rik. You use words as anchors as if they define the universe, rather than measurements of the universe that may be precise, sufficient for the purpose, and true or imprecise, insufficient for the purpose, and false.)

    People who feel the need for religion, do so because they have a need for failure-free social interaction, conformity, and order.

    The Religious Personality:

    Strong bias to Low Dominance (aggression)

    Strong bias to Agreeableness (and empathy, compassion)

    Strong bias to Contentiousness

    Slight bias to Extroversion

    Bias to low Neuroticism (contrary to freud, jung)

    Bias to Low openness

    Slight bias to lower intelligence

    Intelligence: atheists have about 1/2 standard deviation or six to seven points of aggregate IQ. There is a correlation between negative openness and intelligence, so this is to be expected, but it’s not meaningful since the primary difference in religiosity is not intelligence but intuition given personality traits.

    —“mature religiosity and spirituality were associated with high Openness to Experience, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and with low Neuroticism.”—

    —“Religious fundamentalism was associated with higher Agreeableness, and lower Neuroticism and lower Openness to Experience.”—

    —” Extrinsic religiosity was associated with higher Neuroticism but unrelated to the other personality factors. Levels of Neuroticism among religiousness vary, with European samples exhibiting higher levels than in the United States, which was speculated to be due to the dominance of Catholicism in European samples.”—

    —“Traits such as femininity and conservatism have both been linked to religiosity, such that those who scored higher on religiousness were likely to also score higher for femininity and conservatism”–

    —“Religiosity was negatively correlated with traits relating to sexual expression, such as eroticism, sexiness, and sensuality, such that individuals who scored higher on religiosity tended to score lower on these factors of sexuality”—

    —“Humorousness has also been negatively correlated with religiosity, such that individuals who scored higher on religiousness tended to score lower on humorousness.”—

    THE RESULT????

    This set of biases describes the female bias in emotion and cognition.

    There you go. As I’ve said. Christianity (peace) is a feminine religion for the feminine personality. Paganism and Heroism (war) are masculine religions for masculine personalities, and it is exactly these differences that demonstrate how those religions spread.

    CATHOLICS

    Higher neuroticism but this is probably a class factor.

    ORTHODOX

    –“Introverts are more likely to be atheists…. A large portion of Greek Orthodox is ISTJ as well.”–

    Important: data suggests that orthodoxy can survive in the masculine mind (I suspect that is because unlike western christianity, it avoided the philosophical reformation and the battle with science, and remains ritualistic (action oriented) rather than pseudo-intellectual.

    ISLAM:

    —“Data showed that basic religious beliefs have a significant negative correlation with neuroticism (r=-0.29),and a significant positive relationship with extraversion(r=0.28),openness(r=0.14),agreeableness (r=0.29),and conscientiousness (r=0.48). Also, the results of the regression analysis showed that basic religious beliefs can anticipate neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, but they cannot anticipate the openness factor significantly.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-11 08:08:00 UTC

  • THE TRUTH IS A TEST OF FITNESS FOR GODHOOD Divinely ordained law, evident to man

    THE TRUTH IS A TEST OF FITNESS FOR GODHOOD

    Divinely ordained law, evident to man, is physical (physics), natural (reciprocity), and evolutionary(self determination in pursuit of immortality, agency, omniscience, omnipotence) law. Every prophet has been a liar. Every philosopher a fool. And Every Scientist a saint. 😉

    I just do truth. Truth regardless of cost.

    If there are gods, that is their language.

    It is only animals who fear the truth, and liars who avoid it. 😉

    The secret of pagan western civilization

    1 – the primacy of man

    2 – the primacy of truth

    3 – the primacy of agency

    4 – the primacy of self determination

    Eliminates the possibility of Authority

    And Produces:

    5 – Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Adversarialism (Markets) in everything as the only possibility of discovering the truth.

    Semi-humans can’t do it.

    They aren’t evolved enough.

    We understand.

    We had hope for you.

    But you are unfit. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-11 07:00:00 UTC

  • The Enemy Blames Us for Discovery of The Laws of the Universe

    The Left’s Big Lie: Blaming Whites for God.

    —“This is brilliant. An explanation of how the left demonizes the good intent of the right.”–Jason Smith

    The Enemy Left, foments rebellion by claiming, without any warranty or liability, that the European Success achieved by our discovery and adherence to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws – that maintains selection pressure, limiting the reproduction of the underclasses, using the empirical evidence of adversarial markets, and as a consequence genetically pacifying, incrementally domesticating, and evolving humans into Agency, is a form of oppression, rather than the gentle domestication of families clans and tribes into humans that are fit for a high trust, high growth, society and the prosperity that comes with it. In other words, whether evil or unfit, these enemies of western civilization, blame white people for the universe’s physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, like they blamed the gods before us. And they offer false promise of salvation from those laws if we are gone. When the painful truth is – every other civlization failed to discover physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, and institutionalize them as their group strategy. And that is why they stagnated, fell behind, or died at evolution’s hand.