Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • HOW GODS EXIST AND FUNCTION by Curt Doolittle and Stephen Wells -by Stephen Well

    HOW GODS EXIST AND FUNCTION

    by Curt Doolittle and Stephen Wells

    -by Stephen Wells:

    The mistake in reasoning of those who “give it up to God” is generally one of falsely assuming that any higher power operates like a magic wand.

    Author Napoleon Hill who spent years studying successful people noted that the spiritual difference of successful over non successful people was that successful people assigned their faith to God to provide solutions for for them to take action on themselves, rather than for God to simply make their problems go away.

    ***In short, God was to be found within their own subconscious and expressed by acting on their intuition, which itself was disciplined and directed by conscious thought and continuous action towards a clearly defined goal.***

    -by Curt Doolittle

    Yes, this is the correct(scientific) definition of god.

    Gods exists as information.

    That information is trained into your intuition

    That training organizes and filters your intuition.

    Primarily it prevents self deception or, (and this is true) deception by your genes, old, and middle brains.

    And for very obvious reasons, anthropomorphizing that information is more effective at extracting truthfulness from your intuition than you are able to do without it – because intuition will let your genes influence you chaotically while anthropomorphized intuition falsifies your intuition (your auto association) to predict how that character would interpret your thoughts. In other words, we can use our social instincts to override our chaotic intuition by creating a framework for truthful prediction.

    This is pretty obvious once you think it thru. Our bodies and faculties are our only system of measurement. But since we are human and evolved consciousness with enough recursion to predict others’ actions, feelings, thoughts, and wants, we can use other people (archetypes) as systems of measurement as well.

    Is there a difference between what would god want me to do, what would Jesus want me to do, what would Gandalf or Aristotle, me to do, and what would my grandmother want me to do?

    No there isn’t other than a god is a proxy for your social order.

    Systems of measurement to provide a neural economy superior predictive power.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:13:00 UTC

  • SIMPLE DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE (or, why you don’t get it at f

    SIMPLE DEEP UNDERSTANDING OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    (or, why you don’t get it at first)

    Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?”

    We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language.

    The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism.

    The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle.

    P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it.

    The Example:

    –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “—

    Change to:

    —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”—

    Phrase:

    1 – actor

    2 – acted upon

    3 – consequence

    So:

    1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases.

    2- Producing a Complete sentence.

    3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction)

    In other worlds:

    – Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”

    and not:

    – Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”

    Language in operational terms is an accounting system

    That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”.

    Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry

    Sentence = Ledger Entry.

    Paragraph = Income Statement

    Story = Balance Sheet

    If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all.

    Language is a means of measurement.

    Arithmetic is a very precise language

    Accounting is just a very precise language.

    Geometry is another precise language

    Programming is another precise language

    P-Law is another precise language

    P-Testimony is the most precise language possible

    All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state.

    We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language)

    I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose.

    ====

    attn: Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 09:00:00 UTC

  • P LOGIC IN RELATIONSHIPS You don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfrie

    P LOGIC IN RELATIONSHIPS

    You don’t use P-logic to argue with your wife, girlfriend – even if you probably should use it with your daughters. You use P to UNDERSTAND your wife or girlfriend, so that you can ask the right questions and give the right answers.

    The most important of which isn’t to tell her her feelings are wrong, or her desires are wrong, but whether they are possible or not, and whether they would achieve desired ends or not. Women need you to listen while they work through suppressing the emotion and impulse. They need you to support them as they work through those thoughts impulses and emotions so that you relieve them of the burden of doing it alone. And they need you to help them come to a conclusion on their own – just as they help you through your male anger or frustration when it clouds your vision. And they need you to say ‘no’ when it’s your fking job to say ‘these are the limits’ beyond which you are not willing to go – and not apologize for it. Be a man. Give her room to exercise emotional frustration by emotional expression like you exercise emotional frustration by physical expression.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 23:15:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN MILITARY TECH Thinking…. Something is wrong with the mili

    THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN MILITARY TECH

    Thinking…. Something is wrong with the military’s robotic warfare initiative, that has to do with how it’s using vulnerable monolithic modules on top of heavy armor, and cramming too much into each platform.

    But my intuition is that they’re applying missile and airframe tech to land vehicles, and putting it on a platforms rather than building AI capacity into the platform – because Missiles and airframes face very different problems from vehicles.

    Going to have to look into the requirements if I can spare a couple of hours, because current AI tech shouldn’t need this vulnerability. Given that people in that industry aren’t stupid I clearly don’t understand something.

    Other issue is that we have to fly armor to the battlefield and if that’s true we shouldn’t rely on armor. Most obvious example is success of the Abrams, but failure of our personnel carriers, particularly Bradley and Humvee, but inability to copy the Russians’ use of tank platform and armor as personnel carriers because of weight.

    Third is our failure to equip light infantry with an intermediate weapon – a more advanced version of the Russian RPG, and transport.

    And I am not sure why we should be looking at overseas deployment strategies if we’re getting out of the policing business – and if we can’t possibly compete with china and Russia in arming the not-first-world, and we need Europe to rearm on their own.

    I am not sure we should be engaging in urban warfare rather than adopting the Russian strategy of just using artillery to reduce it to rubble, or the Chinese strategy of just building a fortress and overwhelming the opposition.

    There is no chance for the USA to fight a land war in Asia or Africa without a colony or base structure, and we no longer have an economic interest or the economic ability to do finance a world of bases.

    The policing strategy has to end. The only way of fighting a war not on our territory – where we want to preserve capital – is to use the Russian strategy of saturation with artillery or in our case, bombs and missiles. The only reason to have people on the ground is political. Reducing a country to rubble, their infrastructure to rubble, and their military to scrap doesn’t take standing there. It takes AI’s and drones to discover targets, long range bombers, and missiles – and lots and lots of them. the only reason to put people on the ground is to police and hold the territory – which we shouldn’t be doing other than where we can fight land wars: in our homelands.

    We also have to come to terms with the reality that nuclear weapons that White People have refused to deploy against each other are going to be used in the future, and probably not infrequently.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 23:06:00 UTC

  • WHY REQUEST EXCHANGE OF TRIBAL LOYALTY BETWEEN EUROPEAN RELIGIOUS FACTIONS? —“

    WHY REQUEST EXCHANGE OF TRIBAL LOYALTY BETWEEN EUROPEAN RELIGIOUS FACTIONS?

    —“Upon what foundation then did the progenitors of civilisation, Greece then Rome, build itself?”—

    We evolve a means of production, and a means of military competition under that means of production, an organization to manage both, and a narrative to justify both, so that we can reduce the cost and opportunity for conflict in order to maintain those strategies. Every civilization’s strategy is fairly easy to express in those terms.

    European civilization in mediterranean, continental, north sea, and Atlantic eras continue the aristocratic egalitarian tripartite trifunctional organization, and the old military strategy, old law (legal), old myths (social), philosophical, and theological (political) varying little other than the replacement of the ancient warrior-hunter-farmer heroic religion with the medieval farmer-peasant submissive religion of christianity. But given tripartism and trifunctionalism the law and the military remains constant and the church rise and fell. Today the new church is again semitic, with islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, in competition with our traditional masculine hierarchical markets and law.

    —“Are not their successes constituted of the virtues they upheld?”–

    Virtues are excuses for the group competitive strategy we rarely if ever know. Values persist because they persist the competitive strategy. values can be undermined. Judiasm, christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism sought to undermine european values and succeeded because women are vulnerable to the false promise and men are vulnerable to satisfying the demands of women unless in continuous competition with other males.

    Our natural ancestral religion upon which our civilization is founded is one of chaotic gods we compete, cooperate, and trade with – not one we are submissive to. These gods of warriors, whether the greek, roman, germanic pantheons. The church sought to supplant them with submissive gods of slaves who were docile in their fear and ignorance – and who the church could extract revenue from by rent seeking.

    Submission to gods so that one is devoid of responsibility is a christian innovation, achieving its zenith in islam. This is why it is seductive. Devotion to gods so that one is free of status pressure is not a christian innovation. It is even more seductive. Submission to scripture so that one is free of continuous calculation for which one may fail or be subject to blame is semitic innovation. It is seductive as well. These seductions are successful and they are the opposite of the aryan demand for non submission and non-alienation of rights and responsibilities, including pursuit of status, achievement, and innovative reason.

    The church failed the aristocracy succeeded, and we have not yet found a means of accommodating christianity in its decline, while producing a non-false religion. We are in a time of transition. Either the second dark age of the jews will succeed, the second dark age of the muslims, or we will discover a means of combining our three religions chistian(feminine), heathen-nature(familial), pagan-hero(masculine), and aristotelian(judicial), or at least exchanging loyalty between the three, so that we are not subject to a second semitic dark age.

    So we are still and will always be a triparite people: Scientific and Legal and heroic (agency), Philosophical and practical for the able, theological and submissive for the less able or more sensitive to conflict and social pressure (or the dysfunctional who confuse their spiritual accommodation of reality with reality itself.

    —“What Christianity was there here?”–

    What “here” are you referring to?

    —“When you come to Christians asking not the renunciation of their faith but merely loyalty, remember that this is all the Romans first asked of the Christians too.”—

    Our ancestors came to jews. Who we were too tolerant of, just as we are too tolerant of islamists, jews, marxists, postmodernists, feminists and science denialists. And because of our tolerance the jews used false promise, to bait our people into hazard, causing a dark age of ignorance and poverty and disease and suffering only aristotelian thought reversed, and ended the centuries of corruption by the church. Corruption not seen by americans until the prosecution of the deviancy of catholic churches, because protestants have forgotten the corruption of the church prior to the reformation, and the personalization of the relationship between the individual and god first, and the individual and jesus second – due largely to american evangelical protestants.

    —“Remember, it wasn’t the strange and foreign beliefs of the Christians that first caught the attention of the Romans, but rather their abstention from community.”—

    It was the use of christianity to undermine greco roman civlization just as islam, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and their science denialism is used to undermine european civilzation for the past century and a half.

    Sol invictus was the migration of roman religion from zeus-jupiter. Mithras was the migration of the persian version of Mithra – the perfect man. Christianity was invented by using the victim-narrative and the promise of life after death, in stead of the Zeus-Sol-Mithra character we should aspire to be, and the jesus narrative invented so that it could replace the Epic Cycle (Homer) which had conquered and was about to erase the semitic world.

    Judaism, christianity, ad islam were invented by the poor ignorant desert peasantry as a means of using the female group strategy of undermining by gossip, to overthrow the invention of markets, law, reason, merit, and transcendence of man into gods.

    And I am, like my predecessors, trying once again to prevent another semitic dark age – by accommodating christians.

    Christians who have not yet converted christianity into a hearth religion. But are very close to having done so.

    If not for the invasion by jews, muslims, and the underclasses – because of christian tolerance – we would have had the time for christianity to evolve, and science to falsify the marxists, postmodernists feminists and difference-denialists.

    So we are in a position where I must, or at least, someone of ability must, try to discover a vehicle for unity at faster pace than would naturally evolve.

    If not for immigration I would not need to do this work. Because science has solved the lies.

    But false promise to the vulnerable is seductive and spreads more quickly than we can stop it.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 12:38:00 UTC

  • ON FARMERS IN THE DIVISION OF LABOR (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an

    ON FARMERS IN THE DIVISION OF LABOR

    (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson)

    Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.)

    Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized.

    A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools).

    But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers.

    This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices.

    As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 08:41:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/87045742_212213076843520_31793515466

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/87045742_212213076843520_31793515466

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/87045742_212213076843520_3179351546613727232_n_212213073510187.jpg ON FARMERS IN THE DIVISION OF LABOR

    (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson)

    Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.)

    Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized, and distribution.

    A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools).

    But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers.

    This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices.

    As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).

    —-

    (See attached net income for farms)ON FARMERS IN THE DIVISION OF LABOR

    (The flip side of “I, Pencil”.) (probably an important lesson)

    Military(organization of territory) <> Judiciary (organization of cooperation-contract) <> Finance (organization of money(stored time)) <> Entrepreneurship (Organization of opportunity, capital, people) <> Professionals (organization of production(calculation)) <> Managers (Organization of people) <> Producers (Organization of resources) <> Distributors (organization of distribution) <> Trade (organization of transactions) <> Consumers (organization of consumption) <> Parents (organization of reproduction) <> teachers, priests, public intellectuals politicians ( sedation, facilitation, and amelioration of stress arising from scarcity, individual and familial irrelevance, and alienation in the division of labor upon which they depend.)

    Given the problem of “I,Pencil” (distribution of knowledge), an individual farmer has to input a lot of diverse knowledge and effort for low return on investment, in no small part because petroleum products, industrialization, fertilizer, feed were fully commoditized, and distribution.

    A farmer organizes primary resources (animals, food stuffs) and as such must be a skilled craftsman (organizers of specialized resources) at the very limit of craftsman’s capital (tools – no other craftsman requires so many tools).

    But the returns on the organization of resources are small – there are few multipliers. As you move up the production hierarchy you are responsible for organizing more and more and more people – where there are multipliers.

    This is why Marx is wrong. In order to organize people by rational incentives, one must produce marginal competitive differences by which to influence their choices.

    As such the entire difficulty in organizing production is organizing the human beings in a vast network to engage in it with nothing other than the bribe of doing the work (payment).

    —-

    (See attached net income for farms)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 08:41:00 UTC

  • MORE FROM JOY ON MY “THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AFRICANS” POSITIONS Joy is an a

    MORE FROM JOY ON MY “THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AFRICANS” POSITIONS

    Joy is an african american libertarian, who seems to be frustrated by my argument that there is nothing wrong with africa that six generations of one child policy wouldn’t fix. This isn’t a controversial statement – it’s true for any underdeveloped or developing people. This is our second or third go around. And I think her intellectual bias must be american. Because I tell this to africans all day every day as a way of saying “There is nothing wrong with you or your people except class sizes.” Yet when an american woman hears it she keeps trying to find some irrational racism that isn’t there. I’ve said the same thing for over ten years: the difference in races is neoteny and class size when combined with human ethnocentrism produces political conflict when living in proximity, that generates demand for different commons, different norms, redistribution and authoritarianism at the cost of the high trust civli society.

    —Hi Curt, I know my opinion doesn’t mean anything to you…. You said you didn’t think there was anything wrong with black people but you do. You think white people evolved some ability to “create” truth that the rest of “farm animals” do not have. What does this mean? And please provide proof of it.

    This is Joy, from Quora.”—

    Ah, well, you’re confused. I said there is a difference in the size of the classes of different ethnic and racial groups. The size of the bottom burdens the top, who cannot lift the people using ‘Pareto Distributions of Assets’ (meaning market economies). I said white people have almost eliminated their bottom classes. And we have had a long time without bottom classes to eliminate bad behavior in our people in the rest of the classes.

    As for truth, I say because of our history, only white people could develop scientific truth, and high trust societies because of it.

    But I said that any people on earth that will limit the reproduction of the bottom will eventually be able to have the same high trust society as european people.

    There is no difference between humans and the other animals we have domesticated. We are just animals like our farm animals.

    —“I know what you said, but historically speaking even though white people have been responsible for most scientific discoveries, you cannot claim the ability to create truth is exclusive to them. Northern and Subsaharan Africans developed technologies smaller and slower than that of white people but still scientific regardless- as did Arabs and Asians although I suspect you consider them white. And as for the “high-trust” societies claim, do you mean democracy? Cos it’s a terrible idea that sounded great when it started but only went downhill. Many races have had civilizations and gods governing their philosophies- the Western world might be the most successful but that doesn’t mean the ability to detect those ideals was exclusive to them. However, I think we are operating on completely different levels of knowledge. You have worked on these philosophies for a good chunk of your life and I’m just getting started. As much as I approach everything in good faith, I don’t take kindly to my race being referred to as “farm animals” (you used this exclusively differentiating from white people) and undesirable but I can’t help but keep going down this rabbit hole.”—-

    I didn’t make that claim. I made the claim that (a) europeans invented scientific truth (promissory, performative, realism, naturalism, operationalism) because we were a purely military social order (militia), and that is military epistemology. And we invented sovereignty (every man is sovereign and none is above him ever). With truth and sovereignty you can only have our laws of sovereignty, tort, reciprocity and jury. Our sciences evolved from the application of our the logic of our laws to our understanding of the universe. So the only means of organizing our people was markets (competition).

    So we evolved genetically culturally institutionally and scientifically much, much, much faster than all other people combined – both in the prehistoric, in the ancient, and in the modern world. And when we are invaded we are as overwhelmed and fail like all other peoples fail. Because the bottom becomes too big for the top.

    I didn’t refer to your race (or any race) as farm animals.

    I said “We are just animals like our farm animals.” and we are self domesticated like we domesticated our farm animals. You might imply I stated others were farm animals when I stated all of us are indifferent from farm animals – domesticated.

    I you want to take that approach of misstating my words, I’ll say that every race, including whites, has ‘farm animals’ because we are all farm animals – but that some races have far more farm animals than they can raise out of ignorance, superstition, criminality, corruption, and poverty. That’s comical version of saying the same thing: we self domesticated.

    Which is what I say to all people in africa: there is nothing wrong with africa that six generations of one-child policy will not solve. This is africa’s only problem. It is not to say africans are inferior. it is to say that there are too many at the bottom for whom education in any technology is impossible.

    This is just statistics. it’s not possible for the bottom to join the advanced world that requires independent learning. and that’s what IQ does. above 105 you start to be able to learn how to repair machines by reading instructions on your own. This is the minimum ability for modern economic survival in a global economy. The problem for africa and for many countries outside of africa is that there are many, many, people that are below that number. This is why china modernized faster than say india, the middle east, and africa.

    Conversely, it is simply false to say that whites are not the most evolved genetic race, because we are the newest genetic race. We are just ten thousand years old. The primary difference in our race is a minor difference in agency (self control) because of substantial increase in neoteny (slowing the rate of maturity), that we evolved at the cost of emotional instability. Whites are less emotionally stable and more agreeable and introverted. Africans are less agreeable but more extroverted. These differences are small but there are differences. In general, inability to develop neoteny is the problem for the african races: the territory is extremely hostile because of the presence of disease – so rapid maturity was necessary for survival. This rapid maturity has consequences in behavioral development versus more neotenous races, which is well documented in the literature, and visible in all african populations. So between the geography, the distance from major trade routes, the vast size of the lower classes, and faster rates of maturity (and deeper maturity), and the lack of far eastern or western manorialism (eugenic farming) africa’s population distribution is less favorable to advanced development. That says nothing about individual africans and everything about the size of the classes in african countries.

    The only difference between the smartest africans (usually Ghana and Nigeria) and europeans jews and asians, is minor differences in our verbal and spatial abilities, and the rate at which we can continue learning into older age. However, it is not our best people that determine our fate. It is the number at the bottom that prevents the best people from improving the condition of the rest.

    Now don’t say you can’t understand that and therefore confirm everyone’s bias. ok?

    My job is to tell the truth that no one else will so that we solve the problem rather than develop cyclones of lies that just make us all angry.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 16:59:00 UTC

  • WHY CHRISTIANITY (Religion) WORKS An obvious truth I don’t like: Europeans are n

    WHY CHRISTIANITY (Religion) WORKS

    An obvious truth I don’t like: Europeans are not only the youngest race (~10k ybp), and more neotenous than other races – except east asians who are more neotenous than we are – but our neoteny comes at the cost of greater emotional instability – which explains european women. We are in a middle range and east asians are off the neotenous cliff. And what does this mean? Neoteny has interesting consequences: not enough and you mature too early for agency except late in life and prevent lifelong learning. If you have enough you develop agency later and lifelong ability to learn, and too much you develop agency early at the cost of life long learning ability. (I might be one of the first people to discuss this, I’m not sure, but it’s obvious in the data.)

    We could test IQ, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability and then democracy might work. Or we could just restore property owning, married, european males and females employing any number of non-family members – which is demonstrated evidence of intelligence, conscientiousness and emotional stability rather than test evidence. And then a house of women and a house of men to negotiate differences between genders.

    The chinese used the former, for access to bureaucracy. I recommend the latter because we use markets for production. Evidence is evidence.

    So what’s my point? My point is that christianity is more necessary for europeans to stabilize the emotions than is obvious from our average intelligence. We tnd to link the two but that’s not really it. That’s why while there is a relationship between religiosity and intelligence, the chistian ethic remains constant across the population.

    I also understand that for those of us who are more pagan, we respect christians out of LOYALTY, like we respect the flag out of LOYALTY and our ancestors out of loyalty.

    As such I am loyal to my christian brothers, and observant out of loyalty. Even if my god is far closer to Thor-Tyr-Zeus, and my prophets are lawgivers: Odin and Aristotle.

    The solution is to request loyalty in exchange not that we seek to defeat the gods of dominance and submission to which the opposite cannot tolerate thanks (debt).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 15:29:00 UTC

  • THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT HAVE COMMON INTERESTS AND THE FINANCIAL AND STATE SECTOR

    THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT HAVE COMMON INTERESTS AND THE FINANCIAL AND STATE SECTOR IS OUR MUTUAL ENEMY

    I don’t think the Finance / Media / Academy / State “Cathedral” complex understands: The left and right agree that the finance and state complex is counter to our interests. That’s simply true. Otherwise we just want to sort into heterogeneous consumptive quantity (left), and homogenous conservative quality (right), The totalitarian state is preventing us from achieving our desired means of self determination. Without the federal government’s *unconstitutional* dominion over the social organization of the states, we could, as did the original colonies, and the many many states of the holy roman empire (german empire’s historical european organization) go our own way, and have diversity of states to suit the diversity of our interests.

    We aren’t proposing that anyone win the monopoly. We’re proposing the restoration of local control of self determination that is the origin of the constitution, the British empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and all of European history: small homogenous states with different cultures competing for population, production, and trade by the production of different commons.

    So you know, both left and right win by burning the financial and State sectors at the virtual stake so to speak, and then we return to what we seem to demand: a loosely federated states of european civilization with a material judicial ‘priesthood’ of the constitution, instead of a supernatural religious priesthood of the church.

    So you know, between the right and the left and the rewards of peaceful life and choice for the center, the only loser of this revolutionary reformation restoring the constitutional structure to it’s original intent as a federation of states combining arms into a single military for continental defense, and a supreme court to resolve conflicts over property and trade.

    Between the left in the cities and the right in the ‘red sea’ those who have abused us by financialization will easily pay the price.

    And propertarianism tells them how.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 11:26:00 UTC