Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • What Christianity Provided

    May 26, 2020, 11:58 AM Yes, I agree with holland – in part. Even if he more of a fiction writer than a historian. Quoting myself: lol

    “Christianity provided a system of status and virtue for those without means, which in turn created a market for affection (by women) that could create demand for those ethics from men. But it came at a high cost that persisted the dark ages: it was counter to our traditional aristocratic military and legal traditions, religions, and the reverse of our understanding of our relation to the world and our gods. And so, while the new decidedly feminine virtues were added, the entire semitic system of thought conflicted with european thought. It was the competition between aristocracy, the law, and the faith that defined our civlization in bronze, iron, mediterranean, dark, continental, and colonial ages. The reintroduction of aristotle re-harmonized our thinking, and all that remains is completing the restoration of our ancestral aristocratic thought, while maintaining our christian values by restating christianity in the language of our civlization: our law, our science, our philosophy, and a purely scientific and rational faith in ourselves as gods in the making.”

  • Education Is a Via Negativa Like Manners, Ethics, Morals, and Self Sufficiency

    May 26, 2020, 2:05 PM Nonsense. Let me help. You can’t and don’t have a right to education. You have a responsibility to educate your offspring in the defense of others, a responsibility to obtain education in defense of others, and others insure themselves against the harm you or your offspring do by lacking an education, and the moral hazard you place yourself and others into if you fail to educate, obtain and education, and insure others against a lack of education.

  • Education Is a Via Negativa Like Manners, Ethics, Morals, and Self Sufficiency

    May 26, 2020, 2:05 PM Nonsense. Let me help. You can’t and don’t have a right to education. You have a responsibility to educate your offspring in the defense of others, a responsibility to obtain education in defense of others, and others insure themselves against the harm you or your offspring do by lacking an education, and the moral hazard you place yourself and others into if you fail to educate, obtain and education, and insure others against a lack of education.

  • We are missing the headman

    May 26, 2020, 3:01 PM We are missing the headman/mayor, mentor, priest, or rabbi in our civilization so that we abandon all people to navigating general rules – the excess of liberty so to speak. On of the institutions I’m trying to reconstruct is that.

  • We are missing the headman

    May 26, 2020, 3:01 PM We are missing the headman/mayor, mentor, priest, or rabbi in our civilization so that we abandon all people to navigating general rules – the excess of liberty so to speak. On of the institutions I’m trying to reconstruct is that.

  • No. There Aren’t “Too Many Notes”. 😉

    May 26, 2020, 3:05 PM

    —“lotta words here”—Greg Allen

    what do you think i should say in response to your “lotta words” which is a classic example of “too many notes”.

    —“can u just be less gobbledegook and more concise? aren’t you trying to educate ppl?”—Greg Allen

    Not everyone can learn economics and calculus, but most can learn the general rules produced by economics and calculus. Similarly, not everyone can learn P-logic since it is a combination of programming, economics, and law, but most people can learn the general rules produced by P-logic and it’s combination of programming, economics, and law. I am trying to educate people who can be educated in a technical discipline like P-logic that is as hard as any other STEM education. I leave teaching the general rules produced by P-logic to those who specialize in it: John Mark and In Truth Victorious Most of P-law (operational logic) makes use of SERIES of fully disambiguated definitions). Those series of definitions are consistent and coherent with other definitions. Those definitions can be used to construct arguments in operational grammar that looks like programming accounting transactions of human actions. Together they produce a precise system of measurement. That system of measurement serves to render commensurable all cognitive, metaphysical-linguistic, psychological and social sciences. In this case, someone asked for the meaning of calculation, and then Brandon Hayes correctly suggested that I complete the explanation by providing the relationship between calculation and decidability. This is a technical question. Most very very smart people take six months to understand P. Others take years. its not all that difficult to understand. It is fairly difficult to DO. Although Martin, Brandon and others will help you if you need it.

  • No. There Aren’t “Too Many Notes”. 😉

    May 26, 2020, 3:05 PM

    —“lotta words here”—Greg Allen

    what do you think i should say in response to your “lotta words” which is a classic example of “too many notes”.

    —“can u just be less gobbledegook and more concise? aren’t you trying to educate ppl?”—Greg Allen

    Not everyone can learn economics and calculus, but most can learn the general rules produced by economics and calculus. Similarly, not everyone can learn P-logic since it is a combination of programming, economics, and law, but most people can learn the general rules produced by P-logic and it’s combination of programming, economics, and law. I am trying to educate people who can be educated in a technical discipline like P-logic that is as hard as any other STEM education. I leave teaching the general rules produced by P-logic to those who specialize in it: John Mark and In Truth Victorious Most of P-law (operational logic) makes use of SERIES of fully disambiguated definitions). Those series of definitions are consistent and coherent with other definitions. Those definitions can be used to construct arguments in operational grammar that looks like programming accounting transactions of human actions. Together they produce a precise system of measurement. That system of measurement serves to render commensurable all cognitive, metaphysical-linguistic, psychological and social sciences. In this case, someone asked for the meaning of calculation, and then Brandon Hayes correctly suggested that I complete the explanation by providing the relationship between calculation and decidability. This is a technical question. Most very very smart people take six months to understand P. Others take years. its not all that difficult to understand. It is fairly difficult to DO. Although Martin, Brandon and others will help you if you need it.

  • Actually I See Everything in Terms of Acquisition, Retention, and Exchange

    May 26, 2020, 11:28 PM —“Curt sees everything in the context sexual gratification. It’s an interesting theory, but doesn’t explain why countless martyrs in the ancient world were voluntarily flayed alive, burned alive, eaten alive, etc., in the name of Christ. It doesn’t explain why children voluntarily died for Christ. It doesn’t explain why the barbarians, in a very short timeframe, put down their weapons and picked up crosses and scripture. Presumably, they didn’t have any problems with women. It simply doesn’t provide an adequate explanation for the dramatic shift in the world resulting from Christ.”—Emil Suric

    —“Curt Doolittle what’s your take on that?”—Skye Stewart

    I think that’s silly. (Actually i think it’s a rationalization to defend a prior. And Emil is not a foolish person. He is a product of his culture. And like most, even some of the best, he cannot overcome it.) I see everything: 1 – In context of acquisition. 2 – I understand how limited our agency (free will). 3 – I understand that the bias in our cognition has only three axis of variation, of which the physical differences in brain structure and chemical signaling between the sexes is most significant. (the others being developmental hierarchy and developmental degree). 4 – I understand that civilizations use strategies, myths, and grammars to defend them. 5 – And that people are largely ‘bots’ running that software on hardware with different biases. 6 – And it takes both a less biased brain and mind, and a tremendous amount of effort to free ourselves of those inheritances. Most of my work if not all of it provides a uniform system of measurement to circumvent those biases, which producing the first complete language of science: testimony. RELIGION Martyrs were killed because: (a) they would not demonstrate even token loyalty to the empire – instead disloyalty and treason. (b) they were considered atheists (god deniers) and impious in an era where pleasing the gods was considered necessary. (c) they were spreading a falsehood that tacitus correctly called a ‘mischievous superstition’. (d) the religion they were spreading was a hatred of the human race, and of life and joy itself. (e) the religion they were spreading put itself above reality and the state rather than a peerage to reality and the state. (f) they were fomenting an underclass rebellion against the empire’s demonstrated benefits the majority valued with a false promise of supernatural benefits of a hostile minority. (g) they were creating conflict between sects and forenting social unrest. (h)they were reversing the aryan program of incremental domestication of the underclasses and the gradual earning of freedom, liberty, and sovereignty (privilege) creating peers in a majority “middle class” (propertied) civilization. They were rightly considered anti social and treasonous. Just as we rightly consider the ((())) marxists, postmodernists, feminists, hbd-denialists, and anti-traditionalists, ant-moralists, anti-martialists, anti-familists, and sexual deviants today as a means of undermining the aristocracy. The romans were far too kind, have been far too kind during the middle ages, and just as we are far too kind today. They should have exterminated them to the last man woman and child. And in doing so saved europe from the dark ages.

  • Actually I See Everything in Terms of Acquisition, Retention, and Exchange

    May 26, 2020, 11:28 PM —“Curt sees everything in the context sexual gratification. It’s an interesting theory, but doesn’t explain why countless martyrs in the ancient world were voluntarily flayed alive, burned alive, eaten alive, etc., in the name of Christ. It doesn’t explain why children voluntarily died for Christ. It doesn’t explain why the barbarians, in a very short timeframe, put down their weapons and picked up crosses and scripture. Presumably, they didn’t have any problems with women. It simply doesn’t provide an adequate explanation for the dramatic shift in the world resulting from Christ.”—Emil Suric

    —“Curt Doolittle what’s your take on that?”—Skye Stewart

    I think that’s silly. (Actually i think it’s a rationalization to defend a prior. And Emil is not a foolish person. He is a product of his culture. And like most, even some of the best, he cannot overcome it.) I see everything: 1 – In context of acquisition. 2 – I understand how limited our agency (free will). 3 – I understand that the bias in our cognition has only three axis of variation, of which the physical differences in brain structure and chemical signaling between the sexes is most significant. (the others being developmental hierarchy and developmental degree). 4 – I understand that civilizations use strategies, myths, and grammars to defend them. 5 – And that people are largely ‘bots’ running that software on hardware with different biases. 6 – And it takes both a less biased brain and mind, and a tremendous amount of effort to free ourselves of those inheritances. Most of my work if not all of it provides a uniform system of measurement to circumvent those biases, which producing the first complete language of science: testimony. RELIGION Martyrs were killed because: (a) they would not demonstrate even token loyalty to the empire – instead disloyalty and treason. (b) they were considered atheists (god deniers) and impious in an era where pleasing the gods was considered necessary. (c) they were spreading a falsehood that tacitus correctly called a ‘mischievous superstition’. (d) the religion they were spreading was a hatred of the human race, and of life and joy itself. (e) the religion they were spreading put itself above reality and the state rather than a peerage to reality and the state. (f) they were fomenting an underclass rebellion against the empire’s demonstrated benefits the majority valued with a false promise of supernatural benefits of a hostile minority. (g) they were creating conflict between sects and forenting social unrest. (h)they were reversing the aryan program of incremental domestication of the underclasses and the gradual earning of freedom, liberty, and sovereignty (privilege) creating peers in a majority “middle class” (propertied) civilization. They were rightly considered anti social and treasonous. Just as we rightly consider the ((())) marxists, postmodernists, feminists, hbd-denialists, and anti-traditionalists, ant-moralists, anti-martialists, anti-familists, and sexual deviants today as a means of undermining the aristocracy. The romans were far too kind, have been far too kind during the middle ages, and just as we are far too kind today. They should have exterminated them to the last man woman and child. And in doing so saved europe from the dark ages.

  • Women Creating a Market for Male Virtues

    May 26, 2020, 11:29 PM by Michael Churchill Been thinking more about the concept that Christianity created a market for male virtue that was administered by women.

    • As Christianity became the dominant religion, men were bent into women’s moral frame. This became more pronounced with universal suffrage — and took another step-function higher with universal wealth beginning in the 1960s and 70s.

    • Thus today in wealthy countries the moral frame is almost completely dictated by women. Is that natural? It doesn’t seem so. Clearly it is un-competitive civilizationally, as reflected in plunging European birthrates (compared to Africa and Middle East in particular).

    • What REALLY was the moral frame in pre-Christian times. Women must have had a fair amount of moral sway in Rome, for instance. It was a very sophisticated place and women are the glue that holds communities together.

    • And … how “cool” was it to act psychopathically toward other people back in Roman times? Do we really know? If the man of the house was boinking the slave girl would his wife really have no say in the matter?