Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • CULL THE WEAK OF CHARACTER by Daniel Gurpide I think Curt SHOULD also slaughter

    CULL THE WEAK OF CHARACTER

    by Daniel Gurpide

    I think Curt SHOULD also slaughter the sacred cows of Ariosophists, Traditionalists (with capital “T”) and the rest of that motley crew.

    Evola, for example, a third rate “philosopher” in the 20s and 30s, was brought back to life after world war II by the eternal losers: all those nostalgic Fascists and co. who thought they were winning the war – now in another reality dimension: their own delusional ‘phantasy’ world.

    In Evola, Guenon (even worse) and Heidegger (slightly better) there’s nothing but occultism, obfuscation, denial of reality, inferiority complex, biological and intellectual barrenness, impotence (mental and sexual).

    (CD: well that was pretty clear 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 14:34:00 UTC

  • Thank Megan. She’s the one with the brains

    Thank Megan. She’s the one with the brains.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 14:19:00 UTC

  • Book. Easily 500 pages. That’s what you see me posting images of. First chapter

    Book. Easily 500 pages. That’s what you see me posting images of. First chapter serves as an overview of the entire program. Each other chapter expands on the program. The constitution concludes the work. Second on application to moral questions Lots of supporting stuff. Huge amount of content. I’m at 300+ pages now and I don’t think I’m halfway done. So the book evolves from an initial promise, to a table of contents out line, to an overview, to topic by topic coverage, to a constitution, to the reformation of the ‘fields’, to application to moral principles, and then to essays, quotes and glossary. etc.

    Courses. I have the intro course content done and can now finish the overview content. Hard part remaining is teaching methodology. I was working on that for much of july.

    Remaining work is largely methodology, selecting text to add to fill holes, and then we will have to all give it a review so that we find stuff that’s missing or unclear.

    I can see the end so I am very excited.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:59:00 UTC

  • THE ARGUMENT AGAINST OUR DECAYING RELIGION I don’t question the value of solving

    THE ARGUMENT AGAINST OUR DECAYING RELIGION

    I don’t question the value of solving the problems of strategy (morals), tactics(norms), trust(in others), and mindfulness (self trust). Nor the use of the various tools of training ourselves for that purpose. But I question whether the restoration of the stoic ‘religion’, an iteration that further refines it, history as mythos (as was did homer), and the roman model (volunteers with life achievement who perform ceremonies and rituals, many ‘heroes’), sports, and civic duties will do a better job of providing those services than the ones imposed upon us by force that caused a dark age that only a reserve of aryans in the north was able to rescue us from.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:57:00 UTC

  • Yeah. You claim it’s ‘good’. I get that you think it’s preferable. I question wh

    Yeah. You claim it’s ‘good’. I get that you think it’s preferable. I question whether it’s good. And you know, just as there are six or so dimensions of reality, the same applies to value judgements: the so the complete question is whether it’s possible, preferable, good, or true? So unless you can tell me it’s true and it’s possible, whether it’s preferable for an individual or good for the community or mankind is something that remains to be demonstrated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:47:00 UTC

  • It’s ok if I come off defensive. How many challenges of substance do I get? Or a

    It’s ok if I come off defensive. How many challenges of substance do I get? Or are they ad hom’s, special pleading, justifications for preserving self deceptions, retaliation for slaying a sacred cow?

    So I tell you what. Find someone who is making a substantive argument where you think I’m being defensive rather than ‘returning the insult that was given in kind’, or ‘preventing a dishonest or false argument from sticking’ or ‘using the argument with the person for illustrative purposes’, or ‘holding the person to a false argument until they must depart or surrender so that they can’t claim success.”

    I want to see one.

    I do.

    Because in general I find that people use projection to insinuate or suggest I have incentives and use methods other than those that I do and am open and honest about.

    Here is the truth: I use the audience to learn. In large part because it is very difficult for me to understand the thoughts and feelings of ‘ordinary people’. But I cannot let others poison the well for me.

    I keep a record of everything I do.

    So just as I am not letting you get away with a bullshit accusation, I don’t let others get away with bullshit accusations and framings.

    And that is what you call being ‘defensive’.

    And I call it ‘prosecuting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception for the purpose of maintaining the informational commons.’

    In other words, I practice what I preach.

    (jay dyer, rick storey, josh, that one christian-ancap guy whose name I forget… there are any number of people who are trying to preserve self deceptions (sacred cows). it’s ok. I understand. But I get very few interesting criticisms to work with. I learn what I must do by arguing with every one of them. but I’m not going to let them get away with it while talking to me. I will keep with the argument until I understand what falsehood they are trying to protect, and then attack it.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:23:00 UTC

  • THIS. BRING PERSECUTED SOUTH AFRICANS TO AUSTRALIA. DRIVE IT OVER 10,000!!!!

    https://www.change.org/p/australian-government-accept-white-south-african-refugees-to-australia?recruiter=747673393&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=autopublish&utm_content=nafta_share_post_copy_en_4%3Areal_controlSIGN THIS. BRING PERSECUTED SOUTH AFRICANS TO AUSTRALIA. DRIVE IT OVER 10,000!!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:08:00 UTC

  • need to save our people from persecution. It’s our fault they have been persecut

    https://www.change.org/p/australian-government-accept-white-south-african-refugees-to-australia/naftaExp1/control?recruiter=577281299&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=share_petition&utm_content=nafta_share_post_copy_en_5%3AcontrolWe need to save our people from persecution. It’s our fault they have been persecuted. We were wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:07:00 UTC

  • A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT (worth repeating)

    A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT

    (worth repeating)

    The Oath of Transcendent Man

    I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

    As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

    I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

    I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

    I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

    As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

    And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:04:00 UTC

  • PANDERING IS FOR SHEEP – NOT MEN The philosopher needs a theory The intellectual

    PANDERING IS FOR SHEEP – NOT MEN

    The philosopher needs a theory

    The intellectuals need arguments.

    Generals need a strategy

    The captains need a plan.

    The soldiers who will fight need material incentives.

    Silly people need excuses.

    We can’t reason with silly people – they are weak.

    If we must pander to the weak, they are not men.

    We care for the sheep. We do not reason with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 11:16:00 UTC