Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • What I Understand Is Terrifying. It’s Not Me that Doesn’t Understand.

    Oct 18, 2019, 7:13 PM

    –“… (Doolittle) doesn’t understand language …”– A Right Wing Postmodernist

    The truth is not amenable to man, unless the truth provides him with agency. Others confuse truth and utility. The truth may be useful but it is also true and reciprocal. Many statements are useful but either false, ir-reciprocal, or both. AFAIK: 1) All words are names (referrers). 2) All Phrases Descriptions 3) All sentences transactions 4) All statements promises (This is not intuitive). 5) All narrations, stories. 6) All language measurement – that is reducible to analogy to experience – the question is, measurement of WHAT? (This is not intuitive) 7) All meaning transferred by description within experience, and analogy to experience beyond experience. 8) All meaning transferred by consent (understanding), 9) All due diligence limits meaning. 10) All paradigms of of communication deflationary(limited), descriptive(testimony), conflationary (loaded, framed), or inflationary(fictionally expanded), or fictionalism (sophism-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, supernatural-occult) 11) All communications ostracization (departure), cooperation (reciprocal), or coercive (dishonest). 12 ) (and here is the problem:) Audiences infantile, juvenile, ignorant, knowledgeable, skilled, or mastery. 13) audience composed of dominantly empathic, dominantly normative, and dominantly empirical distributions; and all populations distributed between female herd consensus (preference), and male, pack, advantage (truth). 14) and all attempts to organize those ranges of people by incentives either true or false, productive or parasitic, useful, not useful or harmful, and reciprocal, amoral, or irreciprocal, 15) and all persuasion addressed to: i) an average of the audience, ii) an average of the audience’s influencers, iii) tailored to each audience’s influencers. I can go on in even more painful detail. This is just an overview. If you take a peek at the chart of the grammars, you’ll find innovative explanations that no other has provided. As I explained to someone else today, we may need supernatural theology, occult theology, secular theology, rational normative law, and empirical science to convince sufficient numbers of any given polity unless we follow the semitic strategy of infantilization of the cognition of the population, and the only slightly less infantilizing continental strategy – both seem to work. Just as rule of empirical law seems to work. The question is which of the suite of methods do we use to provide decidability in matters of undecidability, difference, dispute, or conflict, between these cognitively dominant paradigms (narratives). Because we very clearly can provide a host of deflationary, descriptive, conflationary, inflationary, and fictionalisms as means of communication between group members given their levels of infancy or maturity, and femininity or masculinity, ignorance or mastery. As to what I’m bringing to the history of thought – I’m bringing falsification to the abrahamic old world and abrahamic new world means of undermining our people with false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pipul and critique that we call islamism, jewish ethics, undermining our laws by design, undermining undermining the classes by marxism, undermining genders through feminism, undermining our identities, undermining truthful speech with postmodernism, and outright denial of individual gender, class, group and racial differences in order reverse our eugenic aesthetic cultural traditional civilizational institutional and technological achievements. And I now perfectly well that it is easy for you and others to criticize that which is imperfect, and to seek attention by doing so when as far as I know there is nothing on the table by anyone living that is other than an admission of failure to provide a solution to the problem other than another retreat into one of the systems of lying that you prefer because lying is a cheap means of agency over the weak. So as usual: “man up and show me something”, because ‘critique’ is just criticizing the real best vs the ideal perfect. “Ya’ll got nothing.” So to speak. Except a bunch of young-uns wanting a daddy in theological, secular theological or sophomoric prose. I have a simple message: “Here is a plan, this plan solves the problem regardless of which narrative you need given your cognitive dominances. It does not require we agree on how to go forward. It agrees on what we prohibit – the enemy. It preserves the western tradition of a competition between theological (lower classes), philosophical (middle classes), and empirical (upper classes). And prohibits a monopoly by any.” So Man up. Show up. And we win the ABILITY to pursue supernatural, philosophical-normative, and empirical means of advancing our interests in markets where we only need to agree on material trades. If that isn’t enough of an answer, every other possible answer will demonstrably fail given the existential classes and their frames, and their interests. So as far as I know your criticism isn’t really a criticism. It’s a demand to serve your PREFERENCE, because you can’t produce an equally competitive solution with equal potential for implementation. If you could, you’d compete and pay no attention to me. So your criticism is simply demonstration of the veracity of my work. We just keep growing slowly, year by year. And If we don’t succeed in creating the answer to the Frankfurt School then maybe someone else will. But so far ‘I got the only game in town’.

  • What I Understand Is Terrifying. It’s Not Me that Doesn’t Understand.

    Oct 18, 2019, 7:13 PM

    –“… (Doolittle) doesn’t understand language …”– A Right Wing Postmodernist

    The truth is not amenable to man, unless the truth provides him with agency. Others confuse truth and utility. The truth may be useful but it is also true and reciprocal. Many statements are useful but either false, ir-reciprocal, or both. AFAIK: 1) All words are names (referrers). 2) All Phrases Descriptions 3) All sentences transactions 4) All statements promises (This is not intuitive). 5) All narrations, stories. 6) All language measurement – that is reducible to analogy to experience – the question is, measurement of WHAT? (This is not intuitive) 7) All meaning transferred by description within experience, and analogy to experience beyond experience. 8) All meaning transferred by consent (understanding), 9) All due diligence limits meaning. 10) All paradigms of of communication deflationary(limited), descriptive(testimony), conflationary (loaded, framed), or inflationary(fictionally expanded), or fictionalism (sophism-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, supernatural-occult) 11) All communications ostracization (departure), cooperation (reciprocal), or coercive (dishonest). 12 ) (and here is the problem:) Audiences infantile, juvenile, ignorant, knowledgeable, skilled, or mastery. 13) audience composed of dominantly empathic, dominantly normative, and dominantly empirical distributions; and all populations distributed between female herd consensus (preference), and male, pack, advantage (truth). 14) and all attempts to organize those ranges of people by incentives either true or false, productive or parasitic, useful, not useful or harmful, and reciprocal, amoral, or irreciprocal, 15) and all persuasion addressed to: i) an average of the audience, ii) an average of the audience’s influencers, iii) tailored to each audience’s influencers. I can go on in even more painful detail. This is just an overview. If you take a peek at the chart of the grammars, you’ll find innovative explanations that no other has provided. As I explained to someone else today, we may need supernatural theology, occult theology, secular theology, rational normative law, and empirical science to convince sufficient numbers of any given polity unless we follow the semitic strategy of infantilization of the cognition of the population, and the only slightly less infantilizing continental strategy – both seem to work. Just as rule of empirical law seems to work. The question is which of the suite of methods do we use to provide decidability in matters of undecidability, difference, dispute, or conflict, between these cognitively dominant paradigms (narratives). Because we very clearly can provide a host of deflationary, descriptive, conflationary, inflationary, and fictionalisms as means of communication between group members given their levels of infancy or maturity, and femininity or masculinity, ignorance or mastery. As to what I’m bringing to the history of thought – I’m bringing falsification to the abrahamic old world and abrahamic new world means of undermining our people with false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pipul and critique that we call islamism, jewish ethics, undermining our laws by design, undermining undermining the classes by marxism, undermining genders through feminism, undermining our identities, undermining truthful speech with postmodernism, and outright denial of individual gender, class, group and racial differences in order reverse our eugenic aesthetic cultural traditional civilizational institutional and technological achievements. And I now perfectly well that it is easy for you and others to criticize that which is imperfect, and to seek attention by doing so when as far as I know there is nothing on the table by anyone living that is other than an admission of failure to provide a solution to the problem other than another retreat into one of the systems of lying that you prefer because lying is a cheap means of agency over the weak. So as usual: “man up and show me something”, because ‘critique’ is just criticizing the real best vs the ideal perfect. “Ya’ll got nothing.” So to speak. Except a bunch of young-uns wanting a daddy in theological, secular theological or sophomoric prose. I have a simple message: “Here is a plan, this plan solves the problem regardless of which narrative you need given your cognitive dominances. It does not require we agree on how to go forward. It agrees on what we prohibit – the enemy. It preserves the western tradition of a competition between theological (lower classes), philosophical (middle classes), and empirical (upper classes). And prohibits a monopoly by any.” So Man up. Show up. And we win the ABILITY to pursue supernatural, philosophical-normative, and empirical means of advancing our interests in markets where we only need to agree on material trades. If that isn’t enough of an answer, every other possible answer will demonstrably fail given the existential classes and their frames, and their interests. So as far as I know your criticism isn’t really a criticism. It’s a demand to serve your PREFERENCE, because you can’t produce an equally competitive solution with equal potential for implementation. If you could, you’d compete and pay no attention to me. So your criticism is simply demonstration of the veracity of my work. We just keep growing slowly, year by year. And If we don’t succeed in creating the answer to the Frankfurt School then maybe someone else will. But so far ‘I got the only game in town’.

  • What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.

    Oct 22, 2019, 12:26 PM Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.

  • What ‘traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.

    Oct 22, 2019, 12:26 PM Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.

  • The Market Demand for Services Provided by Religion

    Oct 22, 2019, 1:09 PM

    1. The market demand for personal mindfulness (Spiritualism) whether empathic-femining (theological), moral-masculine(rational), or analytic-masculine(scientific) exists, and all three demands exist for most of us. The question is, given how the various religions solved mindfulness (Stoicism-epicureanism, buddhism, hinduism, abrahamism) which produces agency (stoicism), which produces optimism (hinduism), which produces withdrawal from reality (buddhism) and which denies and escapes reality (abrahamism).

    2. Religions must provide interpersonal mindfulness by creating a standard dialog, set of signals, and manners that are costly to learn and practice, but that by practicing display to others you are worthy of honest cooperation on the same terms.

    3. Religions must also provide social mindfulness (limitation of fear and comfort in the ethical, and moral. These are moral rules that serve the group’s competitive strategy – and all reflect the environmental challenges of the age of transformation in which men invented religions.,

    4. Religions must also provide political mindfulness (limits on political action and on rulers actions). I won’t cover each of them here.

    5. Religions must also provide a group strategy – gypsy parasitism, jewish parasitism, muslim parasitism, predation and conquest, christian undermining of the truth, knowledge, reason, law, property, aristocracy by rallying the peasantry and women and slaves against all and being as expansionary as islam – to counter islam. Buddhist submission and obedience Hindu class duty and function in the ‘harmony’. Chinese hierarchical family (bureaucracy). Anglo aristocratic egalitarianism (entrepreneurship and corporation).

    So 1. personal mindfulness (peace of mind), 2. interpersonal, 3. social, 4. political, 5. strategic. All of these are served by training in stoicism and epicureanism(realism, naturalism, reciprocity, living within your means, surrounding yourself with family and friends, and insulation from competitive status signaling), training interpersonal reciprocity, social reciprocity, training in political reciprocity, and training in group strategic reciprocity. The fact that we train people in reading, writing, arithmetic, mathematics, and the sciences, and indoctrinate them into falsehoods of marxism (class undermining), feminism(male undermining), and postmodernism (group undermining), but DON”T train them in stoic mindfulness, epicurean happiness, basic money, household finance, and accounting, basic law of contract and reciprocity, the testimony, the grammars, logics, rhetoric, and produce holidays that celebrate our seasons and heroes, thinkers, and saints is just a choice. The only addiction christianity adds is the transformation of western paternalism of masculine aristocracy, to the feminine submission to a false god, the pretense of equality of all, and the one good thing: the feminine emulation of jesus in the extension of forgiveness instead of semitic hypersensitivity to insult and slight – we call this christian love. It’s just self virtue signaling in exchange for immunity from offense by petty people endemic among the desperate, poor and ignorant. The real reason people rely on abrahamic religion is to disintermediate themselves from others status signals so that they can preserve mindfulness and self image despite continuous rejection. The reason we want to live in the christian world is because we are not subject to continuous rejection but continuous tolerance and forgiveness (love). The program of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, is to UNDERMINE christian love from within. Undermine the faith. Undermine the ethics Generate envy and hatred between genders, classes, and identity groups, in order to sew discord that creates demand for an authoritarian state which can extract almost unlimited income from the population to resolve the conflicts that the government created. This is all you need to understand about (a) religion, (b) christianity in politics (c) how we can state christianity in legal terms, (d) how we can teach stoicism and epicureanism and history and truth rather than semitic lies, and (e) how we are undermined because christians will not fight the enemy.

  • The Market Demand for Services Provided by Religion

    Oct 22, 2019, 1:09 PM

    1. The market demand for personal mindfulness (Spiritualism) whether empathic-femining (theological), moral-masculine(rational), or analytic-masculine(scientific) exists, and all three demands exist for most of us. The question is, given how the various religions solved mindfulness (Stoicism-epicureanism, buddhism, hinduism, abrahamism) which produces agency (stoicism), which produces optimism (hinduism), which produces withdrawal from reality (buddhism) and which denies and escapes reality (abrahamism).

    2. Religions must provide interpersonal mindfulness by creating a standard dialog, set of signals, and manners that are costly to learn and practice, but that by practicing display to others you are worthy of honest cooperation on the same terms.

    3. Religions must also provide social mindfulness (limitation of fear and comfort in the ethical, and moral. These are moral rules that serve the group’s competitive strategy – and all reflect the environmental challenges of the age of transformation in which men invented religions.,

    4. Religions must also provide political mindfulness (limits on political action and on rulers actions). I won’t cover each of them here.

    5. Religions must also provide a group strategy – gypsy parasitism, jewish parasitism, muslim parasitism, predation and conquest, christian undermining of the truth, knowledge, reason, law, property, aristocracy by rallying the peasantry and women and slaves against all and being as expansionary as islam – to counter islam. Buddhist submission and obedience Hindu class duty and function in the ‘harmony’. Chinese hierarchical family (bureaucracy). Anglo aristocratic egalitarianism (entrepreneurship and corporation).

    So 1. personal mindfulness (peace of mind), 2. interpersonal, 3. social, 4. political, 5. strategic. All of these are served by training in stoicism and epicureanism(realism, naturalism, reciprocity, living within your means, surrounding yourself with family and friends, and insulation from competitive status signaling), training interpersonal reciprocity, social reciprocity, training in political reciprocity, and training in group strategic reciprocity. The fact that we train people in reading, writing, arithmetic, mathematics, and the sciences, and indoctrinate them into falsehoods of marxism (class undermining), feminism(male undermining), and postmodernism (group undermining), but DON”T train them in stoic mindfulness, epicurean happiness, basic money, household finance, and accounting, basic law of contract and reciprocity, the testimony, the grammars, logics, rhetoric, and produce holidays that celebrate our seasons and heroes, thinkers, and saints is just a choice. The only addiction christianity adds is the transformation of western paternalism of masculine aristocracy, to the feminine submission to a false god, the pretense of equality of all, and the one good thing: the feminine emulation of jesus in the extension of forgiveness instead of semitic hypersensitivity to insult and slight – we call this christian love. It’s just self virtue signaling in exchange for immunity from offense by petty people endemic among the desperate, poor and ignorant. The real reason people rely on abrahamic religion is to disintermediate themselves from others status signals so that they can preserve mindfulness and self image despite continuous rejection. The reason we want to live in the christian world is because we are not subject to continuous rejection but continuous tolerance and forgiveness (love). The program of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, is to UNDERMINE christian love from within. Undermine the faith. Undermine the ethics Generate envy and hatred between genders, classes, and identity groups, in order to sew discord that creates demand for an authoritarian state which can extract almost unlimited income from the population to resolve the conflicts that the government created. This is all you need to understand about (a) religion, (b) christianity in politics (c) how we can state christianity in legal terms, (d) how we can teach stoicism and epicureanism and history and truth rather than semitic lies, and (e) how we are undermined because christians will not fight the enemy.

  • For Hindustanis: No More Nonsense. “You Wasn’t Kangs.”

    Oct 22, 2019, 4:43 PM FOR HINDUSTANIS: NO MORE NONSENSE. “YOU WAS’T KANGS.” (uncomfortable Truth Warning) HISTORY OF THE IE CIVILIZATIONS: The European, Caucasian, Iranic, and Indian Peoples. Look. The IE expansion occurred in Ukraine and Russian north of the black sea out of what appears to have been a competition between proto-european and proto-iranic peoples (and not proto-turkic peoples). The southern and caucasian branch has largely been lost but mixed armenians and georgians remain. The anatolians are lost entirely. The iranic branch moved east, some continued farther east into india and disappeared into the local dravidian population, and the rest continued south into persia, and spread west again to the caucuses, leaving the iranic (some arab admixture) peoples, the indian (70/30-30/70) iranic-dravidian admixture peoples, the european peoples, and the mixed balkan peopels. That is the foundation of the european-caucasian-iranic-indian peoples. That group of people had bronze, horse, wheel, maneuver, entrepernurial organization, a religion they’d adapted from anatolia, but inverted from submissive to heoric, and similar but varied religions that rapidly adapted to each environment. The european remained aristocratic egalitarian, most likely because they conquered near relations, completely conquered them, and retained empirical property-law and the aristocratic peerage. the iranics moved into more developed areas of the indus, persian gulf, and finally Mesopotamian, and adopted religiously dominant hierarchical law so that they could govern conquered peoples. The iranics that conquered and entered india used a hierarchical formal class religion to govern the dravidic peoples – we don’t know why but it appears because indus peoples were more advanced and they needed some means of narration. All of us were ‘stuck’ with that original decision of ‘how to govern ourselves and the people we conquered’. However, we were also stuck with demographics, with India and Mesopotamia having a terrible governance problem because of the ease of survival of the underclasses, but the benefit of trade routes that could be taxes for profit and the financing of wars. But that original decision of how to ‘think about, talk about, argue about how we organize’ is the primary cause of the difference in our achievements. India seems to have developed very rational law and scholarship at one point, but stagnated and like medieval Europe, never evolved a central state strong enough to resist invaders – all of whom were resisted by the pure scale of India not so much as any other factor. The rather obvious answer is that the loss of the Indus river (hrappans) was catastrophic, the demographics unalterable, that a majority middle class could not evolve (and still is struggling). Persia is a well understood story and had not the byzantines and Sassanids exhausted each other Persia would have built an Iranic civilization as India has an Indian, and insulated the rest of the world from the curse (cancer) of islam and it’s systemic destruction of every genetic, institutional, cultural, and intellectual form of capital by expansion of its underclasses. Everyone fought over taxation of the trade routes of the middle east until the age of sail circumvented those trade routes making them irrelevant and eliminating the ability fund soldiers, fund technological investment, build technology, because they lacked the demographics to do it (as china is showing India at the moment). Europe lacked both the warm climate, the flood river valleys, and the trade routes, so while europeans could consume more calories, it had to endure winters, and it was impossible to centralize enough capital to create institutions – until they moved south to conquer the mediterraneans and develop Mediterranean trade. But they were not conquering vast hordes of established peoples. The bronze age collapse had made the Mediterranean vulnerable to european conquest just as the greco-roman collapse and byzantine-Sassanid war made the great civilizations of the ancient world vulnerable to Arab conquest. The difference is that european civilization was not absorbed into locals as were the Indians and the Caucasians, and somewhat the Persians, so they retained the institutions of the peerage, tripartism, customary law of tort, the jury of peers, and an military-empirical rather than supernatural -moral system of rule, that could more rapidly adopt to the development of a middle class. In otter words, no matter how wealthy, the wealthy were largely middle class (commercial). It was this legal system that made europeans work with competition, reason, argument, evidence, geometry, and philosophy rather than hierarchy or equality, moralizing, sophism or supernaturalism, and astrology. So the better question is ‘what did India and china, in their relative isolation do over thousands of years; vs what did Persia do in thousands of years, vs what did Assyria do in their thousands of years, vs what did europeans do in a few hundred years of conquering Europe, a few hundred years in the mediterranean, and a few hundred years after escaping the semitic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark ages? We all invent, trade, and spread technology. The question is ‘what do we do with it’, and how rapidly and what was the consequence? Europeans dragged humanity – kicking and screaming all the while – out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, and early death by utilizing every bit of information to competitively adapt as fast as humanly possible in the IE expansion, in the Ancient World, and in the Modern World. What did the jews, the most literate people in Europe, do? What arts, what architecture, what achievements, what science, or technology, what medicine, what philosophy? None. What did islam achieve for having destroyed five great civilizations of the ancient world, and institutionalizing superstition, ignorance, illiteracy, obedience, the art of lying by abrahamic means. What did india achieve other than numbering and damascene (carbon) steel? What did india inherit from the first institutional civilization the Sumerians? I mean, trade is what makes the technology of measurement, recording, contracts and accounting necessary. Why did indians take the abacus and convert it to symbols where others simply retained the abacus and summary numbers? Why did the middle east focus on religion, india culture, west on law, and far east on bureaucracy? We all tried different things. But indians are desperately trying to blame someone other than the rate of the reproduction of the underclasses for their condition. It is not possible to fix indian demographics, society, or government, without eradication of islam, the conversion from myth to history, and most of all a one child policy for those unable to master the tertiary systems of calculation we call mathematics. And there is no other cause. And this ridiculous belief that you weren’t conquered by pretty much every group that came by, as if they are evil and you are culturally and institutionally incompetent, is something you need to get over. You’re almost isolated on a continent, and like the european or Chinese should have competed on the world stage, yet you haven’t built a wall like china, or a navy like europa, and haven’t prosecuted hostiles among you systematically conquering your people and reducing them to barbarism. The only person to blame for your culture’s condition is the man in the mirror. Because if you can’t compete, then you simply can’t compete, and nature does not tolerate those who she suffers but who do not evolve. The Red Queen Never Rests. You’re welcome for the education. I don’t make errors – ever. Don’t waste the fact that I invested my time in you. Learn something. Edit

  • For Hindustanis: No More Nonsense. “You Wasn’t Kangs.”

    Oct 22, 2019, 4:43 PM FOR HINDUSTANIS: NO MORE NONSENSE. “YOU WAS’T KANGS.” (uncomfortable Truth Warning) HISTORY OF THE IE CIVILIZATIONS: The European, Caucasian, Iranic, and Indian Peoples. Look. The IE expansion occurred in Ukraine and Russian north of the black sea out of what appears to have been a competition between proto-european and proto-iranic peoples (and not proto-turkic peoples). The southern and caucasian branch has largely been lost but mixed armenians and georgians remain. The anatolians are lost entirely. The iranic branch moved east, some continued farther east into india and disappeared into the local dravidian population, and the rest continued south into persia, and spread west again to the caucuses, leaving the iranic (some arab admixture) peoples, the indian (70/30-30/70) iranic-dravidian admixture peoples, the european peoples, and the mixed balkan peopels. That is the foundation of the european-caucasian-iranic-indian peoples. That group of people had bronze, horse, wheel, maneuver, entrepernurial organization, a religion they’d adapted from anatolia, but inverted from submissive to heoric, and similar but varied religions that rapidly adapted to each environment. The european remained aristocratic egalitarian, most likely because they conquered near relations, completely conquered them, and retained empirical property-law and the aristocratic peerage. the iranics moved into more developed areas of the indus, persian gulf, and finally Mesopotamian, and adopted religiously dominant hierarchical law so that they could govern conquered peoples. The iranics that conquered and entered india used a hierarchical formal class religion to govern the dravidic peoples – we don’t know why but it appears because indus peoples were more advanced and they needed some means of narration. All of us were ‘stuck’ with that original decision of ‘how to govern ourselves and the people we conquered’. However, we were also stuck with demographics, with India and Mesopotamia having a terrible governance problem because of the ease of survival of the underclasses, but the benefit of trade routes that could be taxes for profit and the financing of wars. But that original decision of how to ‘think about, talk about, argue about how we organize’ is the primary cause of the difference in our achievements. India seems to have developed very rational law and scholarship at one point, but stagnated and like medieval Europe, never evolved a central state strong enough to resist invaders – all of whom were resisted by the pure scale of India not so much as any other factor. The rather obvious answer is that the loss of the Indus river (hrappans) was catastrophic, the demographics unalterable, that a majority middle class could not evolve (and still is struggling). Persia is a well understood story and had not the byzantines and Sassanids exhausted each other Persia would have built an Iranic civilization as India has an Indian, and insulated the rest of the world from the curse (cancer) of islam and it’s systemic destruction of every genetic, institutional, cultural, and intellectual form of capital by expansion of its underclasses. Everyone fought over taxation of the trade routes of the middle east until the age of sail circumvented those trade routes making them irrelevant and eliminating the ability fund soldiers, fund technological investment, build technology, because they lacked the demographics to do it (as china is showing India at the moment). Europe lacked both the warm climate, the flood river valleys, and the trade routes, so while europeans could consume more calories, it had to endure winters, and it was impossible to centralize enough capital to create institutions – until they moved south to conquer the mediterraneans and develop Mediterranean trade. But they were not conquering vast hordes of established peoples. The bronze age collapse had made the Mediterranean vulnerable to european conquest just as the greco-roman collapse and byzantine-Sassanid war made the great civilizations of the ancient world vulnerable to Arab conquest. The difference is that european civilization was not absorbed into locals as were the Indians and the Caucasians, and somewhat the Persians, so they retained the institutions of the peerage, tripartism, customary law of tort, the jury of peers, and an military-empirical rather than supernatural -moral system of rule, that could more rapidly adopt to the development of a middle class. In otter words, no matter how wealthy, the wealthy were largely middle class (commercial). It was this legal system that made europeans work with competition, reason, argument, evidence, geometry, and philosophy rather than hierarchy or equality, moralizing, sophism or supernaturalism, and astrology. So the better question is ‘what did India and china, in their relative isolation do over thousands of years; vs what did Persia do in thousands of years, vs what did Assyria do in their thousands of years, vs what did europeans do in a few hundred years of conquering Europe, a few hundred years in the mediterranean, and a few hundred years after escaping the semitic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark ages? We all invent, trade, and spread technology. The question is ‘what do we do with it’, and how rapidly and what was the consequence? Europeans dragged humanity – kicking and screaming all the while – out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, disease, suffering, child mortality, and early death by utilizing every bit of information to competitively adapt as fast as humanly possible in the IE expansion, in the Ancient World, and in the Modern World. What did the jews, the most literate people in Europe, do? What arts, what architecture, what achievements, what science, or technology, what medicine, what philosophy? None. What did islam achieve for having destroyed five great civilizations of the ancient world, and institutionalizing superstition, ignorance, illiteracy, obedience, the art of lying by abrahamic means. What did india achieve other than numbering and damascene (carbon) steel? What did india inherit from the first institutional civilization the Sumerians? I mean, trade is what makes the technology of measurement, recording, contracts and accounting necessary. Why did indians take the abacus and convert it to symbols where others simply retained the abacus and summary numbers? Why did the middle east focus on religion, india culture, west on law, and far east on bureaucracy? We all tried different things. But indians are desperately trying to blame someone other than the rate of the reproduction of the underclasses for their condition. It is not possible to fix indian demographics, society, or government, without eradication of islam, the conversion from myth to history, and most of all a one child policy for those unable to master the tertiary systems of calculation we call mathematics. And there is no other cause. And this ridiculous belief that you weren’t conquered by pretty much every group that came by, as if they are evil and you are culturally and institutionally incompetent, is something you need to get over. You’re almost isolated on a continent, and like the european or Chinese should have competed on the world stage, yet you haven’t built a wall like china, or a navy like europa, and haven’t prosecuted hostiles among you systematically conquering your people and reducing them to barbarism. The only person to blame for your culture’s condition is the man in the mirror. Because if you can’t compete, then you simply can’t compete, and nature does not tolerate those who she suffers but who do not evolve. The Red Queen Never Rests. You’re welcome for the education. I don’t make errors – ever. Don’t waste the fact that I invested my time in you. Learn something. Edit

  • Argumentum Ad Theologicum

    Oct 23, 2019, 6:20 PM (yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible) We all defend our investments. it’s irrational to think we won’t defend our investments. As long as that’s what we’re doing, it’s not ir-reciprocal. In my understanding, theology is just one of the grammars. it’s both conflationary, and fictionalist, using the supernatural fictionalism, but that doesn’t mean statements within it can’t be disambiguated, de-fictionalized, operationalized, and converted to statements of physical and natural law. We only come into conflcit when the disambiguated, defictionalized, operationalized, and tested for reciprocity exposes an involuntary transfer. When disambiguating, defictionalizing, nd operationalizing we take for granted we can test for: (a) identity (b) internal consistency, (c) rational choice, (d) and reciprocal rational choice, and possibly (e) full accounting … … Even if we cannot test for (f) external correspondence, (g) operational possibility, and (h) parsimony. … And within reciprocity we may test for (j) productivity, (k) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, and (l) involuntary transfer by externality, (m) and whether one has performed that due diligence, and (n ) whether one can perform restitution. So it’s not like we can’t largely test theological words. It’s mostly whether any argument demanding deduction that is dependent upon theological terms is possible. In other words, it may be possible to make ethical statements in theology it is however, extremely difficult to make arguments from them. It’s not impossible. It just appears very uncommon. There are many true and reciprocal statements in theology. There are very few if any true and reciprocal arguments. That’s the nature of the problem of fictional premises. Not much to do about it.

  • Argumentum Ad Theologicum

    Oct 23, 2019, 6:20 PM (yes it’s possible. it’s just almost impossible) We all defend our investments. it’s irrational to think we won’t defend our investments. As long as that’s what we’re doing, it’s not ir-reciprocal. In my understanding, theology is just one of the grammars. it’s both conflationary, and fictionalist, using the supernatural fictionalism, but that doesn’t mean statements within it can’t be disambiguated, de-fictionalized, operationalized, and converted to statements of physical and natural law. We only come into conflcit when the disambiguated, defictionalized, operationalized, and tested for reciprocity exposes an involuntary transfer. When disambiguating, defictionalizing, nd operationalizing we take for granted we can test for: (a) identity (b) internal consistency, (c) rational choice, (d) and reciprocal rational choice, and possibly (e) full accounting … … Even if we cannot test for (f) external correspondence, (g) operational possibility, and (h) parsimony. … And within reciprocity we may test for (j) productivity, (k) voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, and (l) involuntary transfer by externality, (m) and whether one has performed that due diligence, and (n ) whether one can perform restitution. So it’s not like we can’t largely test theological words. It’s mostly whether any argument demanding deduction that is dependent upon theological terms is possible. In other words, it may be possible to make ethical statements in theology it is however, extremely difficult to make arguments from them. It’s not impossible. It just appears very uncommon. There are many true and reciprocal statements in theology. There are very few if any true and reciprocal arguments. That’s the nature of the problem of fictional premises. Not much to do about it.