Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Why Could Indian Civilization Not Resist?

    I might argue that Hindus are an exception having been conquered, repeatedly, and never ascending into the age of commerce and affluence. We can see the indus valley civilization did. But India seems to not have ascended, but stagnated, and china was not able to enter the age of intellect and stagnated. This is very informative in and of itself. The difference being china could not be conquered until the 20th century and europeans had already given up those ambitions, and india was conquered by every single era of warfare technologists (despite producing the first quality steel). While I agree that the ancient myths are virtuous in cooperating submissively with one another, they are not virtuous in defense. The jews faced a similar problem – on first glance their religion appears beneficial, but upon study it has been catastrophic unless they have the warriors of a host people to defend them. This is my primary difficulty with Hindu civilization. It is incomprehensible to me at times, because, as a member of the aristocratic (military) caste(class) of my people, I cannot imagine the inability to defend, and the tolerance for external rule. And depending upon the mercy of rulers for success in rebellion. 

  • Why Could Indian Civilization Not Resist?

    I might argue that Hindus are an exception having been conquered, repeatedly, and never ascending into the age of commerce and affluence. We can see the indus valley civilization did. But India seems to not have ascended, but stagnated, and china was not able to enter the age of intellect and stagnated. This is very informative in and of itself. The difference being china could not be conquered until the 20th century and europeans had already given up those ambitions, and india was conquered by every single era of warfare technologists (despite producing the first quality steel). While I agree that the ancient myths are virtuous in cooperating submissively with one another, they are not virtuous in defense. The jews faced a similar problem – on first glance their religion appears beneficial, but upon study it has been catastrophic unless they have the warriors of a host people to defend them. This is my primary difficulty with Hindu civilization. It is incomprehensible to me at times, because, as a member of the aristocratic (military) caste(class) of my people, I cannot imagine the inability to defend, and the tolerance for external rule. And depending upon the mercy of rulers for success in rebellion. 

  • Women Murdering Children…

    WOMEN’S MURDERING OF THEIR CHILDREN IS MORE COMMON THEN MEN MURDERING THEIR ENEMIES I suppose I could estimate the stats, but I’m pretty sure there is an even balance between the number of men killed by violence, and the number of children killed by their mothers. There are very good reasons women are treated as dangerous throughout all of history, and it was only the victorians and romanticists that changed that in order to encourage the barbarians to behave once let loose in society by the industrial revolution. === —“An woman has confessed to killing her own children and setting fire to them, after claiming she could no longer support them. Divorcee Elena Karimova, who has 21,000 subscribers for her online cosmetic sales business, is being investigated for strangling her daughter, Khadizha, four, and son Suleiman, two, in the back seat of her rented Kia Rio. The Russian woman – who had fallen behind with loan repayments after being divorced by her husband – then bought fuel from a petrol station, drove the bodies to a forest and set fire to her dead children. Fearing she would be spotted by locals, the 27-year-old put the charred bodies back in her car and returned home. The next day she put the corpses in an abandoned warehouse near Nizhny Novgorod in western Russia and set fire to it.”— You know. I just can’t get my head around it. I just can’t. You know, I can understand walking away. I just can’t understand killing your kin and setting them on fire.

  • Women Murdering Children…

    WOMEN’S MURDERING OF THEIR CHILDREN IS MORE COMMON THEN MEN MURDERING THEIR ENEMIES I suppose I could estimate the stats, but I’m pretty sure there is an even balance between the number of men killed by violence, and the number of children killed by their mothers. There are very good reasons women are treated as dangerous throughout all of history, and it was only the victorians and romanticists that changed that in order to encourage the barbarians to behave once let loose in society by the industrial revolution. === —“An woman has confessed to killing her own children and setting fire to them, after claiming she could no longer support them. Divorcee Elena Karimova, who has 21,000 subscribers for her online cosmetic sales business, is being investigated for strangling her daughter, Khadizha, four, and son Suleiman, two, in the back seat of her rented Kia Rio. The Russian woman – who had fallen behind with loan repayments after being divorced by her husband – then bought fuel from a petrol station, drove the bodies to a forest and set fire to her dead children. Fearing she would be spotted by locals, the 27-year-old put the charred bodies back in her car and returned home. The next day she put the corpses in an abandoned warehouse near Nizhny Novgorod in western Russia and set fire to it.”— You know. I just can’t get my head around it. I just can’t. You know, I can understand walking away. I just can’t understand killing your kin and setting them on fire.

  • (I might argue that Hindus are an exception having been conquered, repeatedly, a

    (I might argue that Hindus are an exception having been conquered, repeatedly, and never ascending into the age of commerce and affluence. We can see the indus valley civilization did. But India seems to not have asciended and stagnated, and china was not able to enter the age of intellect and stagnated. This is very informative in and of itself. The difference being china could not be conquered until the 20th century and europeans had already given up those ambitions, and india was conquered by every single era of warfare technologists (despite producing the first quality steel). While I agree that the ancient myths are virtuous in cooperating submissively with one another, they are not virtuous in defense. The jews faced a similar problem – on first glance their religion appears beneficial, but upon study it has been catastrophic unless they have the warriors of a host people to defend them. This is my primary difficulty with Hindu civilization. It is incomprehensible to me at times, because, as a member of the aristocratic (military) caste(class) of my people, I cannot imagine the inability to defend, and the tolerance for external rule. And depending upon the mercy of rulers for success in rebellion. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 11:27:00 UTC

  • “How do you verify truth?”— Verification is a method of falsification not a me

    —“How do you verify truth?”—

    Verification is a method of falsification not a means of identifying truth. No matter how many excuses you make (justifications) that does not provide us with confidence of truth.

    Instead….

    You eliminate all falsehoods, and what remains is a truth candidate. You eliminate all falsehoods by attempting to falsify each dimension of actionable reality. And you do so to defend against fictionalisms (lies).

    Identity (categorical consistency)

    Logical (internal consistency)

    Empirical (external correspondence)

    Operational (existential possibility)

    Rational (rational choice)

    Reciprocal (reciprocally rational)

    Complete (scope, limits, and parsimony)

    Coherent (across all these tests)

    Warranty (warranty of having performed these tests).

    If all premises and arguments pass these attempts at falsification one may have a truth candidate. Otherwise one does not.

    This is as certain as the laws of physics, mathematics, and logic.

    It is very hard for a statement to survive these tests, to give that testimony, and to warranty it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 09:53:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS MY ENDGAME? —“What is your endgame?”— A Christian Believer I underst

    WHAT IS MY ENDGAME?

    —“What is your endgame?”— A Christian Believer

    I understand that believers are non rational, and un-persuadable, and over invested in a network of falsehoods, and so believers will not change except to follow an even larger and safer herd.

    So my objective is to use arguments to search for people in the herd who know that the mythos is false, but want a new herd to join.

    So I state my arguments and avoid engaging in abrahamic sophisms, and then insult those who make them to deprive them of their attempt to gain confidence and signals from their denials.

    My endgame is the completion of the transformation of germanicized christianity to natural law and reciprocity, completely laundered of sophism(abrahamism), superstition, mysticism, magic, falsehoods, and lies.

    Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 09:33:00 UTC

  • LAUNCHING SUCCESSFUL TECH The problem is the same I have chastised microsoft man

    LAUNCHING SUCCESSFUL TECH

    The problem is the same I have chastised microsoft management about for most of my twenty years of involvement with them: technology is only ten percent as useful as the demo apps upon which applications are built. I was right then, and I’m right now. If you look at PHP for example, without the frameworks the language would be nearly dead. But because of the frameworks it lives. (its why I use it). I wrote the “Microsoft Access Solutions Pack” for Microsoft “back in the day” and it consisted of four fully functional applications, plus the utility library I developed for overcoming the weaknesses in the access architecture. It sold enough copies, but the interesting observation is that for a decade the basis of the better applications depended upon those demo apps and that library.

    The tech is less valuable than the application framework (plug and play basic app) and the ‘full size’ demo apps are more valuable than the framework.

    The reason is very simple, if you can’t produce a framework, and you can’t produce a suite of demo apps, you either aren’t ready to go to market, haven’t actually tested your tech, and have no idea whether it serves any material purpose.

    Tech survives at the EDGES, not the CORE of technology, because it is the EDGES that are uncommon, not the cores.

    Thus endeth the lesson that is always ignored.

    Microsoft chose to improve tools rather than demo apps because they had sufficient network effect that people would invest anyway.

    But once you understand microsoft tools were built on basic and vb3 to create that network you understand why they could do it.

    Holochain needs an out of the box running framework, making use of well understood design patterns, to dominate the market. Otherwise the cost of entry is simply too high for rapid market expansion. If Demo apps were created on top of that framework, then it would be a done deal. But the instinct of programmers is to work with core tech that has no customers where they have to solve real world problems, so that they’re just masturbating, and so rather than falsify their labors by producing applications that prove the utility of their plumbing they preserve the illusions and preserve their ignorance of application of that tech as a means of preserving their illusions (fantasies). We get paid for application tech, not invention tech.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 09:27:00 UTC

  • I can find dozens of liars throughout history, and tens of thousands to rewrite

    I can find dozens of liars throughout history, and tens of thousands to rewrite their words, and millions to repeat their words – on any subject. Just as we can find millions of liars today in the postmodern movement, just as we could find millions a few decades ago in the marxist and bolshevik movement. Che was one of the worst people to live in modernity, but his image is used world round as a savior of modernity. Marx caused 100M dead and he is treated as a savior. Mohammed caused 750M deaths at a minimum, destroyed the great civilizations of the ancient world, and is the longest threat to prosperity man ever made, yet he is a prophet, his words memorized, his warfare deified. The christians were instrumental in the destruction of the roman empire, and the church in undermining the aristocracy, and empire, and the church responsible for the conversion and submission, and illiteracy of europeans to the point where without the vikings, and the remilitarization of europe to resist them, they would have been too weak to resist the muslims. And today christians and their postmodern descendents are the advocates of bringing in the Hordes among us. By the time we overthrew the church half of the capital in europe was ‘dead’ (static), feeding the parasitic, corrupt, church and her politics. Today the church works daily to undermine western civilization. What separates evangelicals from the church is that they have half-recovered. The history of the church is of appropriation of credit they did not earn, and avoidance of criticism that they did. We nearly escaped her with 19th century romanticism, yet the catholic, half catholic, and orthodox countries destroyed germany, which was the remaining engine of our traditions. That we need a church or temple is one thing. That charity must be personally performed is another. That mindfulness is necessary for the many is yet another, but the cancer upon mankind that is abrahamism must end forever as the most evil lie ever invented.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 08:43:00 UTC

  • Promiscuity and Markets

    PROMISCUITY AND MARKETS (important post) Promiscuity breaks the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies and undermines the necessity of the family as the first organization (production of generations), in the hierarchy of cooperative organizations. The French and Italians solve the problem through the sacredness of the family and ‘graceful philandering’ by both genders. Whether you adopt the zero tolerance of the anglos or the high tolerance of the french, is a choice of higher or lower stress. When we think of ourselves as equal rather than opposites that are compatible, and adopt individualism rather than compromise, we achieve in the intergenerational social order, what we achieve in the socialist economy: an inability to calculate and cooperate, and a destruction of the intergenerational means of production.