Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • TRUTH (TESTIMONY) The Testimony We Call “Truth” The Decidability of Testimony —

    TRUTH (TESTIMONY)
    The Testimony We Call “Truth”

    The Decidability of Testimony
    —“We evolved to negotiate pragmatically not testify truthfully. The reason we need Truth is because it’s counter-intuitive – it provides decidability independent of opinion or value – and so it’s often undesirable.” —

    Deflating the word “True”.
    |Testimony| > Dishonesty(bias, deceit) > Error (ignorance, error) >
    … Meaningful (intuitionistic) > Honesty(rational) >
    … … Truthfulness(by due diligence) > Scientific (Testifiable) >
    … … … Ideal Truth (imaginary) >
    … … … … Analytic Truth (logical) >
    … … … … … Tautological Truth (linguistic).

    The etymology of the word “True” is Testimony:

    Truth (n.)
    Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,” from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith,” from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”, “oak” “Strong as an oak”.

    True (adj.)
    Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) “faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.,” from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith” (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws “faithful, trusty”), from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”

    Sense of “consistent with fact” first recorded c. 1200; that of “real, genuine, not counterfeit” is from late 14c.; that of “conformable to a certain standard” (as true north) is from c. 1550. Of artifacts, “accurately fitted or shaped” it is recorded from late 15c. True-love (n.) is Old English treowlufu. True-born (adj.) first attested 1590s. True-false (adj.) as a type of test question is recorded from 1923. To come true (of dreams, etc.) is from 1819.

    True (v.)
    Sense of correspondence. “make true in position, form, or adjustment,” 1841, from true (adj.) in the sense “agreeing with a certain standard.” Related: Trued; truing.
    (source: from the online etymology dictionary)

    An Action (Verb): We Lack a Primary Verb for “Speaking the Truth”
    While we have admittedly fuzzy definitions for true and truth, one of the frailties of English and most other IE languages is that they do not have a primary verb for “speak the truth,” as a contrast to lie and lying (v.). As we will observe repeatedly over the course of this book, the lack of a primary verb for Speaking the Truth is but one of many apparent confusions that are cause us so many problems of grammar and vocabulary.

    In order to solve the problem of the ‘missing term’ we will use the terms “truthful”, “truthfulness”. For example: ‘He lies’, vs. ‘He speaks truthfully’. I’m not adventurous enough with terminology to suggest we use truths and truth as in ‘He truths’, and ‘That’s a truth’, even if it’s not uncommon for us to use “True” and less frequently “Truth” as statements of agreement.

    A Term of Promise: All Statements are Promissory, With Varying Degrees of Contingency
    If I say ‘it’s raining’, I am saying “I promise it is raining”. I might say “I think/believe it is raining” which expresses contingency. I might also say “isn’t it raining?” Or “maybe it is raining” to suggest a possibility rather than state a contingency or a promise. Yet we seek to avoid that accountability.

    The Term Testimony Instead of Promise: ‘Testimonial Truth’
    In philosophical discourse the terms ‘promissory’ or ‘performative’ truth are used for similar purposes. But because we are working in the context of law not norm and because we want to distinguish our work from prior authors, we will use the term “Testimony” and “Testimonial Truth”.

    Only the Conscious (Humans) can Testify or Promise
    Only those capable of speech (testimony), possessing sentience (feeling) consciousness (reason) and agency (cognitive independence from intuitionistic interference) are cable of making such promises. And not all individuals are possessed of sufficient agency (knowledge, skill, ability) to make such promises – and unfortunately we are not ourselves aware of our own limits. For this reason honestly is insufficient for truth claims. Instead we must perform due diligence against our limitations in order to make truth claims. And to guard against deception we must demand warranty (Or as Taleb argues, ‘skin in the game’.) Not simply because people are deceptive, but because they often lack the agency to speak truthfully having performed due diligence against their frailties.

    The Degree of Promise in Testimony
    So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of three axes;
    – The demand for decidability given the context of the question we decide
    – The decidability of the testimony necessary to fulfill that demand
    – The degree of warranty of due diligence that such testimony is sufficient for decidability, and demand for infallibility

    Our testimony is sufficiently decidable and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not.

    A Term of Agreement
    In English grammar we refer to yes and no as a subtype of word we call ‘Agreement’, as in |Word| Noun > Verb > Relation > Agreement. We also use ‘true’ and ‘false’ as methods of ‘agreement’, but agreement on the correspondence of testimony (speech) with reality (existence). So when we say ‘That is true’, we mean ‘I agree with your testimony’. Or less supportively ‘I consent to your testimony’. Or “I promise you will agree with my testimony”, or ‘I cannot disagree with your testimony’. In this sense yes and no, true and false, good and bad are statements of agreement.

    |Agreement| Agree, True, Good < Undecidable > Disagree, False, Bad

    A Point of View
    We habitually conflate (a) the words uttered by the speaker, with (b) the audience’s judgment of the correspondence of those words with reality, (c) the incentives of the speaker that bias his speech with (d) the sufficiency of decidability for the speaker, (e) the sufficiency of decidability of the audience who may or may not possess the skill, and (f) sufficiency of decidability for the judge who may or must possess such a skill to do so. And in doing so we conflate point of view (speaker, audience, judge), even though those points of view possess different information and different incentives, and different objectives.

    The audience and the judge must ask, what demand for sufficient decidability is required to answer this question? What degree of due diligence is necessary to claim an answer is honest, truthful, or true – and is it warrantable? And is that degree of honesty, truthfulness or truth sufficient to provide the decidability demanded by the question? In other words, is the testimony decidable true, and is the question decidable given that degree of truth? If not then what is the scale of possible consequence (harm), and what is the possibility of restitution (correction of the error)?

    |Point of View| Speaker (Producer)(Hypothesis) < >
    Audience (Market)(Theory) > Judge (Court)(Finding of Law)

    So a speaker (voice), author (text), or craftsman (symbols or illustrations), produces a product (hypothesis), that is tested by an audience (market), and negotiated (recursively), and either agreed with (purchased), or disagreed with (boycotted – exited), or submitted to a court (fraud).

    The Act of Testimony: Copying, Describing, and Reconstructing
    Speaking Truthfully requires accurately copying (reporting on) existential reality and then representing that copy in thoughts, words, displays, and actions or other symbols, where the audience’s use of those thoughts, words, and symbols reconstructs the same perception of reality as the speaker.

    Cheers
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-21 04:17:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748922703929593856

  • DECIDABILITY (ACTION) The Satisfaction of Demand For Infallibility A question (o

    DECIDABILITY (ACTION)
    The Satisfaction of Demand For Infallibility

    A question (or statement) is Decidable (true or false: consistent, correspondent, possible; good or bad, and sufficient) if (a) an algorithm (argument, or set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (domain: set of axioms, rules, theories) that one can use to produce a decision and (b) if sufficient information for the decision is present within the system such that, (c) one need not appeal to either information outside of the system, or DISCRETION (INTUITION, VALUES) to supply information necessary to DECIDE.

    Ergo, if DISCRETION (choice) is unnecessary, a proposition is DECIDABLE. If Discretion is necessary then the question may be DISCRETIONARY (subjective choice) but it is not DECIDABLE (objective).

    Or for the most reductive version: the subjective requires appeal to intuition (judgment) and the objective requires only appeal to present information.

    |Choice| Decidable > Discretionary(opinion) > Choice(preference, presumed good) > Random Selection (undecidable) > In-actionable

    The purpose of our method is to produce decidability as a means of circumventing the dependence on discretion and choice. By our diligent production of decidability we produce a value independent universal language of testimony in all subjects; but particularly in the subjects most vulnerable to discretionary impulse: cooperation, ethics, morality, and politics.

    Note: This emphasis on decidability explains the difference between rule of law (decidable) and rule by discretion (undecidable, and therefore subjective discretion or choice are required). If discretion is required, then it is rule by discretion (choice) if not, then rule of law.

    Demand For Increasingly Infallible Decidability

    In an effort to avoid the mistake of relying upon an Ideal Type, we will describe a spectrum, or ordered hierarchy of Demand for DECIDABILITY. That way we do not ask the universe to fit our definition, but that we provide a definition that corresponds to decidability in all cases we can perceive in the universe.

    Spectrum of Decidability:

    Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
    Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident about my decision (that it will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resource )
    Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
    Moral: Decidable enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me, if they have knowledge of my actions.
    Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
    Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
    Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (‘True’)
    Logical(Analytic): Decidable out of physical or logical necessity
    Tautological: Decidably identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms).
    Ideal: Decidable if we possess the knowledge we do not and cannot, but wish we did. 😉

    So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

    The Methods of Decidability

    We can also separate the actions of intuiting (intuition), from reasoning (all processes of the mind), from rationalism (justification), from calculation (in the wider sense – transformation of inputs into outputs) from computation (algorithm).

    |DECIDABLE| Unintelligible(Incomprehensible) > Intelligible(Comprehensible) > Possible (actionable) > Preferable > Good (Normative, Moral) > Decidable(Judicial) > True (scientific) > Analytically True (logical) > Tautologically True (Tautological)

    and

    |COGNITION| Comprehensible > Imaginable > Reasonable > Rational > Calculable > Computational > Identical

    and

    |METHOD| Experiential(emotional) > Rational (law : Social or Contractual) Theoretic (science: existential) > Axiomatic(logic: mental) >

    Each of these methods of reasoning depends upon a different degree of demand for the infallibility of decidability.

    So when we say we can decide a question, we mean it satisfies the demand for the infallibility of decidability.

    Note: This technique, where we test the satisfaction of demand for infallibility, will frame most of our thinking, and it is the principle difference between logical, philosophical, scientific, and legal thought. That is because it is the most complete of logical, philosophical, scientific, and legal thought.

    Cheers
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-21 04:04:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748919545606148096

  • THE DURABILITY OF OUR ACTS: NATURAL LAW CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT LEGISLATION REGUL

    THE DURABILITY OF OUR ACTS: NATURAL LAW CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT LEGISLATION REGULATION AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT

    –“It’s not “a law.” It’s an amendment to the Constitution”–

    I’m increasingly astounded by the presumptions of the common folk, and their overestimation of their knowledge and comprehension – and worse their capacity for deduction. I’m aware just how rapidly cognition declines, but the rate at which it declines and the severity of it, depresses me whenever I encounter it.

    While the term ‘law’ should of course apply only to the natural common concurrent law of cooperation it is, both in the field, and colloquially, used to cover the entire body of laws of nature, and the text of the constitution, amendment, legislation, regulation, findings of the court, and even in some cases ‘commands’ (orders) – and as such the term refers to the totality of rules of decidability at the court’s disposal in the resolution of conflicts.

    While at present we have (unfortunately) no sunset dates for via-positivas of legislation and regulation, and of course sunsets are unnecessary for foundational premises such as the natural law, constitution, amendments, and findings of the court. The natural law is unchangeable, the constitution reflects the natural law such that it requires little other than clarification (though there are about six or eight holes in it at present), amendments need changing infrequently as demographics, strategy, and knowledge evolve, and the findings of the court are subject to continuous revision as our demographics, strategy, and knowledge evolve.

    Reply addressees: @EvanPlaskett @zeidman1 @NoahBookbinder

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-20 15:04:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748723243198902272

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748497812763951517

  • THE SUM OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR As one reaches the age of retirement one comes to the

    THE SUM OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
    As one reaches the age of retirement one comes to the conclusion that you and your generation are no longer in control so to speak, and that the market serves the consumptive, and the consumptive are younger.

    Instead your mission is to protect your investments across the spectrum of demonstrated interests (capital-in-toto), and the preservation of those investments for you, for your children and grandchildren, and for your people and theirs, and so on.

    Those investments in capital-in-toto of course, include those investments including the costs you bore to maintain your group’s evolutionary strategy, it’s assets, including the assets of it’s it’s myths, histories, institutions, traditions, values, morals and norms.

    Human behavior is always reducible to acquisition, retention, and consumption, and our variation in responsibility for the private and common, by our variation in temporal to intertemporal responsibility.

    With those of us with greater intertemporal responsibility always constraining those with intertemporal and even temporal responsibility.

    Because the difference between us is almost always reducible to ability, willingness. and want of a scope of responsibility from the now to the past to the future.
    Really. That’s the sum of human behavior.

    Cheers
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-20 14:59:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748722038808748032

  • YOU CAN’T RUSH THINK TIME (the creative process) When I don’t feel too much pres

    YOU CAN’T RUSH THINK TIME
    (the creative process)
    When I don’t feel too much pressure I love my work. You just can’t rush ‘think time’. It’s a creative process and while you can facilitate it rather easily, especially if you maintain an environment that lacks distractions and stresses, you can’t force it. The best you can do is fill the shelves of your mind by studying the material and then go do something else relatively mindless, and better if it’s relaxing or enjoying ( I like doing housework.. lol ), and when it’s ready it will come to you.
    Now I do have a methodical method of thinking through problems but most of the time it’s largely a matter of disambiguating everything into first causes to the point where I understand what the underlying problem really is.
    Even then, the answer sort of.. appears .. in the shower or driving or shopping or even doing the dishes for goodness sake.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 23:03:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748481454806327296

  • When I don’t feel too much pressure I love my work. You just can’t rush ‘think t

    When I don’t feel too much pressure I love my work. You just can’t rush ‘think time’. It’s a creative process and while you can facilitate it rather easily, especially if you maintain an environment that lacks distractions and stresses, you can’t force it. The best you can do is fill the shelves of your mind by studying the material and then go do something else relatively mindless, and better if it’s relaxing or enjoying ( I like doing housework.. lol ), and when it’s ready it will come to you.
    Now I do have a methodical method of thinking through problems but most of the time it’s largely a matter of disambiguating everything into first causes to the point where I understand what the underlying problem really is.
    Even then, the answer sort of.. appears .. in the shower or driving or shopping or doing the dishes for goodness sake.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 23:03:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748476813490192384

  • How Our Lower Courts Create False Positives That Confuse the Public. (Re: Trump/

    How Our Lower Courts Create False Positives That Confuse the Public.
    (Re: Trump/Biden candidacy. Chevron Defense, and more)

    The lower courts (below the supreme court) are expected to adjudicate all cases before them regardless of the court’s competency, clarity of the law, or the decidability of the case before them.

    There is no provision where a lower court can defer a case to a higher court without issuing an opinion (decision), leaving the act of (costly) appeal to the parties.

    Yet there are many cases where the matter is not of resolution of conflict between facts, or resolution of conflicts between competing legislation and law, but resolution of conflict or lack of clarity in constitutional matters.

    So, in our legal systems, lower courts generally do not declare a matter “undecidable” and then defer it to a higher court. Instead, the process usually involves specific procedures and grounds for appealing a lower court’s decision to a higher court.

    The result is the lower courts are forced to issue specious decisions that rapidly attract public attention even if the arguments or the decision are – as in more cases than you’d expect – rather ridiculous.

    As such the people cannot invest too much interest in lower court decision that rests on ‘unsettled’ law, in particular constitutional clarity, until those matters are considered by at least an appellate, but in the most contentious unsettled matters, the supreme court.

    Here’s how our court system typically works:

    Decision-Making in Lower Courts:
    Lower courts (like trial courts) are responsible for hearing cases, evaluating evidence, and making decisions based on the applicable law. They are expected to reach a decision on the matters before them, even if the case is complex or challenging.

    Appeals Process:
    If a party involved in a case disagrees with the decision of a lower court, they have the right to appeal to a higher court. The grounds for appeal might include claims of legal errors, misinterpretation of the law, or issues with how the trial was conducted.
    The appeal is not a simple deferral; it’s a formal process where the appellant must provide a basis for why the higher court should review and potentially overturn or modify the lower court’s decision.

    Role of Higher Courts:
    Higher courts (like appellate courts or supreme courts) primarily review lower court decisions to ensure the correct application of law and legal principles. They do not typically re-examine factual evidence but focus on legal and procedural aspects.
    If a higher court finds that there were significant legal errors in the lower court’s handling of the case, it may overturn the decision, modify it, or remand the case back to the lower court for a new trial or further proceedings.

    Undecidability Not a Typical Ground for Appeal:
    The concept of a case being “undecidable” is not a standard legal ground for appeal. Courts are expected to apply the law to the facts of the case and reach a decision, even in complex scenarios.
    However, if a lower court finds that it lacks jurisdiction or that the case involves legal questions beyond its scope, it might dismiss or transfer the case, potentially leading to it being taken up by a higher court.

    Summary
    In summary, while lower courts do not typically defer cases to higher courts on the basis of undecidability, there are established mechanisms for appealing decisions and having higher courts review cases for legal errors or misapplications of law.

    And… that’s not a good thing – at least – if the people can interpret such a matter as more settled than it is.

    Cheers
    – CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 22:33:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748473848293404673

  • PRESENT ISSUES: TRUMP CANDIDACY AND THE CHEVRON DEFENSE There’s a lot of current

    PRESENT ISSUES: TRUMP CANDIDACY AND THE CHEVRON DEFENSE

    There’s a lot of current legal commentary by a lot of well meaning legal practitioners, but given that there is a dispute over the foundation of the law (the logical basis) and a dispute over the faith in the institutions of government, there is a great deal of difference between opinions offered. And they vary from really bad, to missing the point, to making excuses, to reasonably cogent.

    Back when it was clear the economics profession was going to crash pre-2008, I considered devoting my time to correcting economic thought.

    But I understood the problem with economic thought was predicated on a problem of legal thought that would limit the use and abuse of economic thought.

    And that the only way to solve the problem was the truth, meaning, continuing my work universally commensurable language of ethics and politics and extending it to that of law and as a consequence economics.

    Because, with the displacement of traditional agrarian morals of the church with industrial age economics as justification for all political decisions, the weaknesses in law due to supernatural nonsense were amplified by scale of polity and economy using pseudoscientific and sophomoric nonsense.

    At this point the economics profession has all but suicided in its attempt to drive policy, and the culture wars have replaced both economic science and religion’s agrarian morality in some desperate search for foundations of decision making in economics, politics, and law.

    And the legal profession is lacking it’s logical foundation as seriously as was the economic and the theological.

    Yet this is an unnecessary failure. The founders and their english precursors were very close to a science of ethics and politics. For reasons I’ve elaborated elsewhere they did solve the problem of incentives but they left about a half dozen holes in the constitution despite being elaborated by Blackstone – who was the legal sage of the age they were all familiar with – and those holes consisted of a few presumptions of the obvious that today are not (natural, common, and concurrent voting legislation and law are simply scientific), and a few problems they simply didn’t know how to solve (truthful speech) without undermining the church’s ability to teach christian dogma myth and mysticism which they considered necessary for the ‘common people’ meaning those who were not educated lesser aristocracy.

    So this is another time in my life when I see an opening for a career devoted to explaining to the public these matters in terms that they can understand -precisely because at this point we know how to fill those holes in the constitution whether presumptions or limitations of knowledge at the time.

    Truth is I would find it more rewarding than the rather solitary and tedious process of producing the reforms that would fix those holes in that constitution, and fully complete the grounding of our american- anglo – germanic – early european law in a science and formal operational logic. The reason it’s more rewarding is that it’s socially and politically participatory.

    Yet one cannot be done without the other. And I am one individual where my work would allow more to mater it and increase the numbers of those of us who seek to educate the people so that in their ignorance and optimism they are easily led to the serfdom and authoritarianism that will result from their natural dispositions without such knowledge, and without such defense by those few of us capable of defense of others by gift of tradition, loyalty, will, or talent or all four.

    Cheers
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 20:20:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748440389843824640

  • WHAT DOES SETTLED LAW MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF TRUMP ET AL? Settled law means that

    WHAT DOES SETTLED LAW MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF TRUMP ET AL?

    Settled law means that the people consider the matter settled and just and as such no longer pursue remedy in court or legislation or worse. The court is chartered with the tradition of ‘keeping the kings peace’ so to speak by producing settled law. If the people and the legislature agree, and the court can find no failure in the construction of the law that violates the constitution, it’s concurrency and common law traditions, with some bias for the natural law per Blackstone, then the court will consider the matter settled.

    However, given that american codification of anglo, germanic, and early european law is (alone in the world) empirical, (scientific) precisely because it is natural, common, and concurrent in construction, all (a) amendments (b) legislation (c) regulation, and (d) findings of the courts are open to revision just as is all scientific theory. (Which is of course why the institutionalization of law and science originated in england).

    So, previously I said that the court is resisting and reversing lawfare, by which the people and the legislatures are bypassed – this is how the activism of the sixties was pushed through against the will of the population, and the due process demanded by the constitution. The reversal of roe v wade the most exemplary.

    In this case the court could easily state that the attempt to deny Trump the ballot in the state is an activism by political wings in the state, and without the consent of the people of the state, which then affects the will of the people of other states. As such, the court would consider this lawfare: attempt to create new law by the court that must be decided either by the constitution and if tolerated by the constitution then by the legislature of the totality of the states – in the case of the presidency.

    So the court will (likely) decide that this is a lack of clarity in the constitution and as such it is a SCOTUS issue. And thankfully SCOTUS is restoring originalism meaning that the text means what it meant at the time of its writing and if it must be altered then that must be a decision for the people and their legislatures not for the court. So in most cases the court is simply applying that logic to any given matter that is of constitutional import rather than legislative conflict or legitimacy.

    How the election is conducted within states is a matter for states, yet that will just as likely soon be limited as well given the corruption of the election process that has been continuous since the early eighteen hundreds at least in immigrant urban centers.

    The court is restoring rule of law and responsibility of the legislature to make good law, and ending discretionary rule. And in this case you’re arguing for discretionary rule by political activists and a questionable judge in a matter of constitutional clarity.

    I can be wrong. It happens. It just doesn’t happen very often.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 19:58:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748434892294094848

  • Abrahamic Cults (occult) Are A Populist Veneer Over European Institutions (real)

    Abrahamic Cults (occult) Are A Populist Veneer Over European Institutions (real)
    Our civilization is culturally european, and yes there is some inclusion of the abrahamic METHOD – because it is cheap and easy mythology for children, women, and the lower classes vs the costly learning of the discipline of greco roman philosophy (stoicism, epicureanism), but since “There is nothing good in christianity that was not present in greco roman germanic thought, but there is a great deal that is bad in christianity that is not present in greco-roman-germanic thought” the abrahamic method simply increased the scope of the population that could be domesticated into responsibility for the commons at the cost of dumbing down the population rather than elevating them with reason.
    Otherwise, abrahamism teaches superstition lying and ignorance and infantilization, to make willing subjects, that was finally defeated by the reintroduction of classical thought and the restoration of trade around the germanic core of the atlantic and north and baltic seas.
    That does not mean that christian teaching doesn’t produce the optimum citizen for a highh trust polity – at least in the lower two thirds of the population. But it does mean that abrahamism teaches the falsehood, magical thinking, fictionalization, manipulation, and the art of lying natural to women at industrial scale.

    History of Masculine European vs Feminine Semitic
    1) The abrahamic religions were a revolt against indo european (european-persian) superiority in culture and civilization and technology.
    2) The jewish restoration of the torah was a counter revolution against the greco roman law.
    3) Christianity was a revolt by the primitives of the levant against greco roman reason culture civilization, that left them a decadent impoverished underclass that could not compete.
    4) The Jewish Reformation of Rabbinical Judaism was an attempt to imitate the greco roman schools.
    5) The (byzantine imposition) of christianity by force upon rome was two fold: to turn the aggressive western peasantry into docile levantine serfs; to create a state within a state that would undermine the roman aristocratic government (or what remained of it); and to replace the aristocratic culture with the submissive culture of the east, thus bringing germanic-italic european rome under slavic-syrian rule.
    6) The muslim rejection of christianity and creation of islam as a heresy was a counter revolution against the byzantine conversion of tolerant christianity into eastern roman law so that it was no longer tolerable (adaptable) by the primitive arabs and their neighbors.
    7) Mendelssohn’s reforms were a counter-reaction to the success of anglo common law, french utopian continental law, and german philosophy.
    8) Marx’s new secular theology was reform of jewish feminine communal abrahamic thought in reaction to scientific, economic, and institutional thought.
    9) The rest of the jewish marxist-sequence through the woke is another attempt at creating a feminine submissive rebellion under a feminine authoritarianism against the european escape from it over the past millennium.

    No more semitic feminine dark ages please.

    The semitic vs european competition has always been the superior masculine heroic against the inferior feminine semitic submissive – or what others have called ‘the master vs slave morality’, which is, at its source, the masculine eugenic against the feminine dysgenic.

    No more dark ages.
    We must not let our tolerance of the feminine and it’s pretense of innocence and non aggression creat another horror. This time of pseudoscience and sophistry instead of supernaturalism and sophistry.

    Cheers.

    Reply addressees: @Saurabh_Shah1 @teodoriancu14

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-18 19:42:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748068400117448704

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748061239866228954