Form: Thread

  • (western civ) WHY CHRISTIANITY ISN’T ENOUGH 1) Western civ has always been trifu

    (western civ)
    WHY CHRISTIANITY ISN’T ENOUGH

    1) Western civ has always been trifunctional, in that we preserve competition between religion(feminine, familial), law (political, commercial) and aristocracy (war). This forms a market competition between social, economic, and military elites, that promotes competitive innovation, and prevents corruption and stagnation through a balance of powers.

    2) Western civ whose origins are best understood by study of the Spartans, then maturing thru trade into the Athenians, as an upper class of horse-riding warriors (aristocracy) financed by their extended families (oligarchy), over some number of footsoldiers (citizens) and a conquered set of farm workers and laborers (slaves).

    3) Christian religion was an innovation because it provided the underclasses (women, serfs, slaves) a means of obtaining status by simply doing no wrong, rather than possessing wealth and power – and it was made possible by the wealth increase generated by the roman empire, roman roads, roman administration, and roman trade. Thus reducing alienation between the classes, and lowering the cost of administering increasingly larger polities. While the church was successful in undermining roman institutions of cultural production – just as woke is doing today, the military and the law and trifunctionalism remained.

    4) The germanic aristocracy captured the Church as a holding company for land under primogeniture, and so the aristocracy (military and land), traders and transporters (law), and nobility(church and peasantry), maintained the trifunctional equilibrium. (There is no means of concentrating capital as in the flood river valley civs, so it means federations of aristocracy were necessary – especially in Germany.)

    5) As such the church failed to fully reform into the acquinian and scholastic model of natural law, uniting Christianity and science, in response to darwin. The French left in response to the french revolution, and the Jewish left in response to the world wars, were successful in disintermediating the aristocracy and the military ending trifunctionalism and driving to Jewish and french authoritarianism (positive law) – replacing the church, by merging it with the secular state.

    6) The Jewish left then captured the institutions, and converted them from vehicles for training the aristocracy, nobility, and upper middle class into responsibility for the administration of the state, economy, and polity, into CREDENTIALISM which allowed Jewish intellectuals to be pseudo-intellectuals whose purpose was to destroy the institutions of cultural production in Europe,m replacing trifunctionalism with authoritarian clerisy.

    So the correct answer is that Christianity ALONE is too weak to resist the authoritarian religion of the left, and requires military aristocracy, and rule of law, and demonstrated competency in real life instead of certification by credentialism (academies).

    My work attempts to fix this problem and reverse the process of destruction of our civilization. Because we must both repair our law, restore meritocracy over credentialism, restore our military aristocracy, and complete the unification of Christianity and science started by Aquinas, nearly completed by Blackstone, Smith, Hobbes-Locke, and Hume: the natural law (as I define it): “the law of man, of nature, and nature’s god.”

    There is no other solution.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:48:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634325501631234054

  • (western civ) WHY CHRISTIANITY ISN’T ENOUGH 1) Western civ has always been trifu

    (western civ)
    WHY CHRISTIANITY ISN’T ENOUGH

    1) Western civ has always been trifunctional, in that we preserve competition between religion(feminine, familial), law (political, commercial) and aristocracy (war). This forms a market competition between social, economic, and military elites, that promotes competitive innovation, and prevents corruption and stagnation through a balance of powers.

    2) Western civ whose origins are best understood by study of the Spartans, then maturing thru trade into the Athenians, as an upper class of horse-riding warriors (aristocracy) financed by their extended families (oligarchy), over some number of footsoldiers (citizens) and a conquered set of farm workers and laborers (slaves).

    3) Christian religion was an innovation because it provided the underclasses (women, serfs, slaves) a means of obtaining status by simply doing no wrong, rather than possessing wealth and power – and it was made possible by the wealth increase generated by the roman empire, roman roads, roman administration, and roman trade. Thus reducing alienation between the classes, and lowering the cost of administering increasingly larger polities. While the church was successful in undermining roman institutions of cultural production – just as woke is doing today, the military and the law and trifunctionalism remained.

    4) The germanic aristocracy captured the Church as a holding company for land under primogeniture, and so the aristocracy (military and land), traders and transporters (law), and nobility(church and peasantry), maintained the trifunctional equilibrium. (There is no means of concentrating capital as in the flood river valley civs, so it means federations of aristocracy were necessary – especially in Germany.)

    5) As such the church failed to fully reform into the acquinian and scholastic model of natural law, uniting Christianity and science, in response to darwin. The French left in response to the french revolution, and the Jewish left in response to the world wars, were successful in disintermediating the aristocracy and the military ending trifunctionalism and driving to Jewish and french authoritarianism (positive law) – replacing the church, by merging it with the secular state.

    6) The Jewish left then captured the institutions, and converted them from vehicles for training the aristocracy, nobility, and upper middle class into responsibility for the administration of the state, economy, and polity, into CREDENTIALISM which allowed Jewish intellectuals to be pseudo-intellectuals whose purpose was to destroy the institutions of cultural production in Europe,m replacing trifunctionalism with authoritarian clerisy.

    So the correct answer is that Christianity ALONE is too weak to resist the authoritarian religion of the left, and requires military aristocracy, and rule of law, and demonstrated competency in real life instead of certification by credentialism (academies).

    My work attempts to fix this problem and reverse the process of destruction of our civilization. Because we must both repair our law, restore meritocracy over credentialism, restore our military aristocracy, and complete the unification of Christianity and science started by Aquinas, nearly completed by Blackstone, Smith, Hobbes-Locke, and Hume: the natural law (as I define it): “the law of man, of nature, and nature’s god.”

    There is no other solution.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:48:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634325501249568770

  • THE TIPPING POINT IN MALE COGNITION (repost) (exasperation) I love my fellow mas

    THE TIPPING POINT IN MALE COGNITION
    (repost) (exasperation)

    I love my fellow masculine males, I love the common man, despite not being one, and I love that Gab exists to give them voice – when that voice is so thoroughly suppressed elsewhere.

    On the other hand I’ve become absolutely convinced, despite every possible attempt to find a solution, that the …

    Mascluline > Disagreeable > Anti-Social > Sociopathic

    .. spectrum is no more open to education and organization into a political force than is the extreme left that this right-wing mirrors in behavior.

    It’s actually worse because the left extremes will at least follow direction despite all the risks and costs, and the right won’t show up without certainty that they have to bear neither cost nor risk – the right are natural cowards.

    So there is no hope for the hard right. The middle or center-right will have to lead. Because disagreeable, antisocial, and sociopathic magical thinking (conspiracy) mad-boys are a dead weight on themselves, and a cancer for the broader conservative and traditional population.

    So realistically, I write for the tiny percent for whom there is hope to provide insight, education, and strategy. And I pretty much ignore the rest unless there is some reason for conducting an argument that might educate the truth-seeking audience despite the cacophony of idiocy spammed by the dysfunctionals.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:44:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634324485879873540

  • THE TIPPING POINT IN MALE COGNITION (repost) (exasperation) I love my fellow mas

    THE TIPPING POINT IN MALE COGNITION
    (repost) (exasperation)

    I love my fellow masculine males, I love the common man, despite not being one, and I love that Gab exists to give them voice – when that voice is so thoroughly suppressed elsewhere.

    On the other hand I’ve become absolutely convinced, despite every possible attempt to find a solution, that the …

    Mascluline > Disagreeable > Anti-Social > Sociopathic

    .. spectrum is no more open to education and organization into a political force than is the extreme left that this right-wing mirrors in behavior.

    It’s actually worse because the left extremes will at least follow direction despite all the risks and costs, and the right won’t show up without certainty that they have to bear neither cost nor risk – the right are natural cowards.

    So there is no hope for the hard right. The middle or center-right will have to lead. Because disagreeable, antisocial, and sociopathic magical thinking (conspiracy) mad-boys are a dead weight on themselves, and a cancer for the broader conservative and traditional population.

    So realistically, I write for the tiny percent for whom there is hope to provide insight, education, and strategy. And I pretty much ignore the rest unless there is some reason for conducting an argument that might educate the truth-seeking audience despite the cacophony of idiocy spammed by the dysfunctionals.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:44:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634324485745639425

  • WHY THE WORLD ABANDONS THE WEST? Does the world hate the west (natural law, rule

    WHY THE WORLD ABANDONS THE WEST?

    Does the world hate the west (natural law, rule of law, republican government, democratic elections, global trade, and the prosperity that results)? Or does the world hate the degeneracy of neoMarxism, Multiculturalism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Hedonism, and Woke?

    OK, let’s make the question even worse? What culture (civ) did natural law, rule of law, republican government et al arise from? (Western), and what culture (civ) did Marxism, neoMarxism, Multiculturalism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Hedonism, and Woke et al arise from? (Jewish)

    And if the Western people, or at least, Western women, are vulnerable to the revolution against Western civ by Jewish influence; and if the West is providing the vehicle for the propagation of this influence, then it’s rational for the ‘moral’ world to resist “the whole package”.

    So is the world against western culture and its institutions? Or is it against Jewish culture and its war against western institutions, and the moral institutions of the rest of the world, via western institutions? It’s obvious. It’s also fixable: Outlaw immoral cultural sedition.

    So disambiguate between the west and western high-trust institutions that continue traditional morals that maintain the primacy of the intergenerational family as the purpose of policy, and restore the prohibition of ‘hazarding’ our young from the commons.

    We are not criminals until we are aware we’re committing a crime. The rule of law states “no law no crime”. However this doesn’t apply to torts. If damage is don’t then restitution is due.

    How do we collect restitution from the Marxist, pomo, woke, cult?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:42:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634323800551563266

  • WHY THE WORLD ABANDONS THE WEST? Does the world hate the west (natural law, rule

    WHY THE WORLD ABANDONS THE WEST?

    Does the world hate the west (natural law, rule of law, republican government, democratic elections, global trade, and the prosperity that results)? Or does the world hate the degeneracy of neoMarxism, Multiculturalism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Hedonism, and Woke?

    OK, let’s make the question even worse? What culture (civ) did natural law, rule of law, republican government et al arise from? (Western), and what culture (civ) did Marxism, neoMarxism, Multiculturalism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Hedonism, and Woke et al arise from? (Jewish)

    And if the Western people, or at least, Western women, are vulnerable to the revolution against Western civ by Jewish influence; and if the West is providing the vehicle for the propagation of this influence, then it’s rational for the ‘moral’ world to resist “the whole package”.

    So is the world against western culture and its institutions? Or is it against Jewish culture and its war against western institutions, and the moral institutions of the rest of the world, via western institutions? It’s obvious. It’s also fixable: Outlaw immoral cultural sedition.

    So disambiguate between the west and western high-trust institutions that continue traditional morals that maintain the primacy of the intergenerational family as the purpose of policy, and restore the prohibition of ‘hazarding’ our young from the commons.

    We are not criminals until we are aware we’re committing a crime. The rule of law states “no law no crime”. However this doesn’t apply to torts. If damage is don’t then restitution is due.

    How do we collect restitution from the Marxist, pomo, woke, cult?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:42:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634323800283136000

  • (worth repeaging) CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM Try this:

    (worth repeaging)
    CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM

    Try this:
    1) All syllogistic (verbal, set) logic is either tautological or contingent upon premises.
    2) All axiomatic logic is contingent upon axioms.
    3) All operational logic from first principles is not contingent – it’s either constructible or not: surviving falsification or not.

    See?
    Everythign we state in P-law is constructed from first principles in operational prose.
    We don’t necessarily need to know something is true.
    But we can pretty securely say it’s false.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634314951807442944

  • (worth repeaging) CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM Try this:

    (worth repeaging)
    CONSTRAINTS ON LOGIC: THE PRIMACY OF OPERATIONALISM

    Try this:
    1) All syllogistic (verbal, set) logic is either tautological or contingent upon premises.
    2) All axiomatic logic is contingent upon axioms.
    3) All operational logic from first principles is not contingent – it’s either constructible or not: surviving falsification or not.

    See?
    Everythign we state in P-law is constructed from first principles in operational prose.
    We don’t necessarily need to know something is true.
    But we can pretty securely say it’s false.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634314951920611351

  • THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘p

    THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
    Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
    The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
    Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
    In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
    The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
    What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.

    For example:
    All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
    Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
    Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
    Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
    Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
    Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
    Individualism over familism isn’t a good.

    How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?

    While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?

    In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.

    Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.

    That’s how it’s done.

    And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @RVAwonk


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723101102080

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897

  • THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘p

    THE CORRECT ANSWER: DISINFORMATION
    Disinformation Curation is impossible by a ‘panel’
    The panel may provide trustworthiness when presenting information discovered, must be translated for public understanding.
    Falsification by adversarial (market) competition is possible.
    In any field, only the top handful (single digits) are competent to falsify claims. We learned in behavioral econ that disciplinary information is not generalizable.
    The public and the media work very hard to obtain present answers when the truthful answer is almost always ‘we don’t know’ or ‘this is the range of possibilities, and we don’t know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying’
    What the public needs from any authority is ‘the safe bet is X, and the risky bet is Y, and the public should CHOOSE as they see fit. That’s the only answer that should ever come out of anyone’s mouth.

    For example:
    All postwar behavior ‘science’ is pseudoscience: Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Lewontin, Gould. I could fill this entire space with pseudoscientists.
    Furthermore the entire marxist-pomo-woke spectrum is produced by philosophers not scientists.
    Democracy isn’t a good – but a luxury of rule of law
    Mass democracy is a bad – we have concurrency for a reason.
    Democratic Socialism isn’t a good – is a fraud.
    Diversity isn’t a good – it’s incredibly destructive.
    Individualism over familism isn’t a good.

    How will you judge disinformation when the institutional narrative is DISINFORMATION?

    While technically the discipline of epistemology or ‘truth’, in practical terms, I specialize in the logic of lying. How much do you want to bet I can’t expose anyone in any panel, when they answer any question, that requires truth before face?

    In fact, the public is almost always, when given the truthful rather than ‘couched’ information, superior en mass to credentials. Almost always.

    Why? For the same reason juries succeed so often: Because don’t need to detect truth, only detect incentive to lie, and failure to survive falsification of accusation of lying.

    That’s how it’s done.

    And no, you won’t find anyone who understands this better than I do. Sorry. We have too much legal and economic history. And social media has made the science of lying possible because of near-universal demonstrated bias by expression of outrage accusation and defense. That’s the one virtue of Social Media. It was possible to science lying.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634312723415674880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634046553412304897