Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE RESIDUES OF CHRISTIANITY ARE RESIDUES OF ARYANISM Or even better. That those

    THE RESIDUES OF CHRISTIANITY ARE RESIDUES OF ARYANISM

    Or even better. That those myths and that content, was originally greek, roman, and european – and that it was always there even before the church.

    It doesn’t matter what name we call those residues (Pareto called them Residues and Derivations). It isn’t helpful to associate them with the church.

    Those residues and derivations can be stated scientifically, rationally, and mythically. They don’t need the fiction around them at all.

    Rabbinical Judaism was an innovation (reformation) produced from greek ideas.

    Christianity was an innovation (reformation) on judaism produced from greek, roman, and persian ideas.

    What was retained was the 1) the false history to add legitimacy by contrast to the new reformation, 2) the trials of christ story to replace the trials of Achilles story; 3) the underlying argument that the unlanded (poor, ignorant) pastoralists were somehow divine (rather than inferior) to the agrarians and their aristocracy (the strong, wealthy, powerful), 4) the use of all of the above to undermine the aristocracy, commercial, and agrarian society.

    —“when the Christian myths became unbelievable, they left in the minds of even intelligent and educated men a residue, the detritus of the rejected mythology, in the form of superstitions about “all mankind,” “human rights,” and similar figments of the imagination that had gained currency only on the assumption that they had been decreed by an omnipotent deity, so that in practical terms we must regard as basically Christian and religious such irrational cults as Communism and the tangle of fancies that is called “Liberalism” and is the most widely accepted faith among our people today. I am a little encouraged that today some of the more intelligent “Liberals” are at last perceiving that their supposedly rational creed is simply based on the Christian myths they have consciously rejected. I note, for example, that Mary Kenny, who describes herself as “a former radical”, has come to the realization that “so many of the [Liberals’] political ideas… are religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every individual equally… The feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.”-Revilo P. Oliver—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-30 17:06:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJQr050jPYM

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-30 14:10:00 UTC

  • Some overweight, bearded, leathered, bandana-wearing harley rider, and he’s play

    Some overweight, bearded, leathered, bandana-wearing harley rider, and he’s playing falsetto effeminate pop from the seventies or eighties. WTF?????

    I have been away from the common people a long time. Common farmers I’m ok with. Common tradesmen, I’m ok with. Common small business people I adore. Common office workers I can tolerate. But now I can identify common industrial laborers and I see the problem is endemic. They’re like state bureaucracy workers: infantilized.

    No wonder this state is a dead man walking.

    Never let people exit the market. It makes them ‘wrong’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-30 13:44:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES: THOSE WHO BEAR THE BURDEN OF EVERYONE ELSE’S LIBERTY A Socialist

    CONSERVATIVES: THOSE WHO BEAR THE BURDEN OF EVERYONE ELSE’S LIBERTY

    A Socialist will fight, but not compete in the market, nor bear the cost of norms. A libertarian will compete in the market but not fight, nor bear the cost of norms. A conservative will both fight and compete in the market and bear the cost of norms and laws that place the inter generational family ahead of the temporal individual. As far as I can see conservatives are the only people willing to pay the cost of their Sovereignty, other’s Liberty, Freedom, and Charity. Everyone else is a fraud. Those who fight earn. Everyone else is a free rider.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-30 13:35:00 UTC

  • I’m not trying to compromise, but revolt and separate so we cooperate by market

    I’m not trying to compromise, but revolt and separate so we cooperate by market rather than suffer under monopoly majority rule.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-30 13:28:00 UTC

  • Natural Law: Prosecution of the criminal, unethical, and immoral, in display, wo

    Natural Law: Prosecution of the criminal, unethical, and immoral, in display, word, and deed. It’s that simple.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-29 14:21:00 UTC

  • BOOK UPDATE Wow. So, splitting out the libertarian content into a separate book

    BOOK UPDATE

    Wow. So, splitting out the libertarian content into a separate book was incredibly successful. Right now it’s 220 pages. It’s a nice tight argument. Still a non-trivial read, but a tight argument.

    The core of testimonialism/ propertarianism/ market-fascism(Markets in everything) is now around 100 pages.

    Toying with separating out the cultural criticism content as well. That’s currently at 150 pages and I think it’s dead weight. Its better published later as a separate work where I’ve applied natural law to other cultures and religions the same way I’ve applied it to all ethical, moral, and political questions.

    That will still leave me with a 600+ page book.

    I don’t save much by separating out the revolutionary content, but I’m thinking that if I publish it separately and *later* then I can get very deep into strategy and tactics, but I dont’ ‘taint’ the major work.

    Anyway. Just giving you an update.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-29 12:27:00 UTC

  • REVOLUTION COMES —-“Seriously, this is all out of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radical

    REVOLUTION COMES

    —-“Seriously, this is all out of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” Go back and review the Glenn Beck programs of 2012-2014…when he presented some very good information on the Weather Underground (particularly Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers), as well as Cloward and Piven, and all the “outstanding” work by Van Jones to topple the system. I’m not a personal fan of Beck’s, but back then he used to have very comprehensive layouts that were easily referenced and noted that concerned these Marxists and Communists marching under the banner and guise of “social justice.” All that stuff that Van Jones had planned back then, with funding from Acorn and George Soros…it is manifesting itself here and now.

    There is a civil war coming, as it is the domestic initiative that must be pursued to bring the United States down to the canvas…rendering her ineffective when the foreign initiative…an attack comes…to give the final count. In both battles, nobody will be able to retreat to a neutral corner. If the U.S. stays intact, then the NWO loses, and vice-versa. These protestors (paid and genuine) are but a sampling of the platter to be served…a buffet right out of Pandora’s box.”—–

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-29 09:34:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? —“Is your truth criteria of

    OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?

    —“Is your truth criteria of mere pragmatic nature? It’s not like you can even talk about binary truth without formal logic, first predicate logic and some notion of a formal system.”—Timo Rohner

    Great question.

    Is decidability binary or ternary? Well, its ternary. True, Undecidable, False.

    Why rely on binary logic? Deducibility.

    Why Deducibility? (self reference) Logic is only a test of internal consistency.

    What problems were Frege and Pierce trying to solve? Mathematics.

    What problems did it not solve? Paradoxes.

    What minor problems does operationalism solve? There are no paradoxes.

    What major problems does operationalism solve? Lying. Fraud. Pretense of knowledge. (problems not present in mathematics).

    What is the difference between mathematics and law? Action.

    How can we test without self reference? existential possibility.

    How does formal logic perform its function? Symbolic parsimony and self reference.

    How does operationalism perform its function? Full expansion, and reference to the full set of dimensions of reality, (The opposite approach)

    How do the logics differ? Justificationary versus Critical (survival from falsification).

    What is the difference between analytic truth ( 2+2=4) and testimonial truth (I promise that the cat will appear black)? Logical versus Scientific.

    Can everything expressible in operationalism be expressed in predicate logic? No. Just as mathematics cannot express law.

    Can everything expressible in predicate logic be expressed in operationalism? Yes. Just as law can express more than mathematics.

    Is operationalism a formal grammar? Of course. All language consists of formal grammar, the problem is removing the untestable statements from the language. In the case of english, that’s the verb ‘to-be’ (the copula).

    Which has more explanatory power? Operationalism.

    Mathematics and logic do not produce truth statements, but proofs of internal consistency.

    Science and testimony in operational language produce truth statements: proofs of consistency in all dimensions: categorical, logical, empirical, operational (action algorithmic), rational (choice), reciprocal (moral), and scope complete (parsimony,limits, and full accounting ).

    But the more practical answer is, (a) why are the foundations of mathematics expressed in ideal rather than real (operational) terms? (b) Why do people study predicate logic if it merely ‘trains’ you to think rigorously, but not rationally or morally in the full scope of questions?

    My position remains that cantor and Frege caused a century of nonsense in mathematics (as predicted by poincare) equal to the damage caused by Marx, Boaz, Freud, and Adorno.

    Mathematics is a trivial discipline in construction if stated in operational language. So is logic. So is argument. So is law. They differ only in the scope of grammar we include in order to reference the subset of dimensions of reality we include in our argument.

    So… why would we EVER include only a subset of reality?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-29 06:21:00 UTC

  • While there are minor differences in verbal and spatial ability between the race

    While there are minor differences in verbal and spatial ability between the races and subraces at all levels, which appears to be due to degree of neotonic selection, and degree of selection for sexual dimorphism (in other words, very minor), the principle differences between the races and subraces are the scale of the underclasses, where underclasses are determined by IQ, Neoteny, Dimorphism, Symmetry (lower error).

    In other words, the europeans and east asians were under greater selection pressure for cooperation in harsh agrarian cycles, whereas the warmer climes were under greater selection pressure for early maturity against disease gradients, food availability gradients, and competitor gradients.

    So in that sense while it is true that europeans and east asians are more ‘advanced’ genetically no group is prohibited from achieving the very same rate of genetic development in just a few generations under soft eugneics (reduction of reproduction in the underclasses).

    This means basically that we have been reversing evolution for over a century and a half.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-28 16:36:00 UTC