Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • My Position on Christianity

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:12 AM (core)(important) To John’s explanation, I’ll add this: 1. SUPPRESSION OF FALSEHOOD AND ITS CONSEQUENCES – My work has a nearly single minded objective, and that ending lying in public speech. So, I’m not complaining about just christianity, but the falsehoods by which the abrahamic religions are constructed, the means of conveying those falsehoods, the consequences of teaching christians how to lie using the abrahamic method, and the consequences of christians lying using the abrahamic method, that makes the entire polity vulnerable to marxist, feminine, postmodern pseudoscience, sophism and denial, just as christianity judaism and islam were spread by supernaturalism, sophism, and denial of reality. As such my objective is the opposite of Augustine and Aquinas, which is to integrate greek reason into christianity on supernatural terms, and instead integrate christianity into western science and reason on scientific terms.

    1. A POLITICAL RELIGION – Christianity, when expressed in secular scientific terms, is in fact an optimum SOCIAL and adequate PERSONAL religion even if it is not an optimum POLITICAL religion -which is why it failed to achieve what islam and judaism did, and why it has declined rapidly in the modern era. My goal is to license political religion so that we cannot be undermined again.

    2. RESTORING A STATE RELIGION TO EXCLUDE OTHERS – I’m trying to discover a way to make christianity a state religion by converting it to secular terms – this is possible because christianity and only christianity among the abrahamic religions is compatible with natural law. Christians despise the fact that the lessons of christianity in scientific terms, are optimum strategies for social cooperation at least at interpersonal scale. Because the magic and ‘woo woo’ is lost by doing so restoring dependence upon reason, instead of allowing us to fall into pacifist intuition where we can abandon reason. (which is why religions work to sedate humans.) So over the long term I work to produce a christian law that is inviolate, like sharia, so to speak, from the natural law, and the christian extension of the natural law, by the exhaustion of forgiveness before retaliation or prosecution.

    3. RESTORING THE BALANCE OF POWERS – If I can convert Christianity to secular terms I can restore the church as the political agency responsible for the individual and family, limiting the government to the material, and restore competition between family-church and commerce-government, and military-state. It is this division and competition i’m seeking to restore. (I don’t tell you these things because they taint the audience by letting them know my purposes. I only explain afterward, so that my attacks on any given subject make sense in retrospect. In other words, I’m a scientist. I run tests. The public willing to engage in intellectually honest discourse serves as my testing laboratory.)

    4. MULTIPLE CLASSES MULTIPLE RELIGIONS, SAME MESSAGE – All religions are class religions. Westerners practice a personal religion of Jesus (lower), a social religion of christianity (middle), an secular religion of philosophy (upper middle), a political religion of the law and the sciences that extend the law (upper). The Chinese have confucianism, the Dao, and buddhism, nationalism and familialism. Every culture other than judaism and islam have class religions. And we have and need our class religions.

    5. MULTIPLE GENDERS: ADD MASCULINITY TO RELIGION – There are those of us for whom the philosophy of secular christianity – it’s cooperation – is merely valuable, but for whom our ancestors, culture, nation, civilization are more precious than the false promise of an evil semitic god. And so if we categorize heathenry as the thanks to nature not denial of it, and paganism as thanks to heroes of our history, and the archetypes that are non-submissive to nature and heroic in achievement rather than heroic in tolerance. So I am continuing my process of investigation into whether it is possible to unite these scientific, natural, and christian, traditions in a constitution, that prohibits competition by which to undermine them. And whether they can be practiced together or separately. So again, I see myself trying to unite western civilization against further destruction. And I am doing so by the same means as did those great men who came before me, in every great time of change.

    There is a deep method to the appearance of my madness. Do not assume you grasp what I am doing. Much of what I do requires I maintain your ignorance of what I am doing, in order to ensure I collect quality information from the population. This is how all behavioral science must be conducted. And it’s how I conduct it.

    • Curt

  • The Meaning of All Men Are Created Equal

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:23 AM ”…Created equal …” is an incomplete sentence. In P this would have to be a complete sentence. “…. are created by nature, equal before the laws of nature and the natural law of reciprocity.” It’s just poetic. And they use property or tort rather than reciprocity. ” … associated …” doesn’t mean anything. I can gossip and spread a rumor about you, and cause people to associate you with something negative. “… aristocracy..” meant and means rule by the best, in other words, meritocracy, demonstrated by military defense, achievement of wealth, and contribution to the political government of the polity. Truth will bring meritocracy. If we produce families producing consistent meritocracy over generations we will produce nobility. If we produce a government by people from that nobility, we will produce an aristocracy. If that hierarchy of merit is defended by rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity, by universal standing in matters of the commons, then it is very hard for aristocracy to survive without in fact surviving on meritocracy. Same goes for entrepreneurs today. The problem was removing the requirement that one demonstrate meritocracy in order to participate in government., We call this error the universal franchise. But that was a mistake. Furthermore, instead of the aristocracy producing policy and the government acting as a jury, and the bureaucracy enforcing it, we gave the decision to the government and removed the veto of the aristocracy. That’s the problem. Demonstrated excellence is the only test of merit.

  • The Meaning of All Men Are Created Equal

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:23 AM ”…Created equal …” is an incomplete sentence. In P this would have to be a complete sentence. “…. are created by nature, equal before the laws of nature and the natural law of reciprocity.” It’s just poetic. And they use property or tort rather than reciprocity. ” … associated …” doesn’t mean anything. I can gossip and spread a rumor about you, and cause people to associate you with something negative. “… aristocracy..” meant and means rule by the best, in other words, meritocracy, demonstrated by military defense, achievement of wealth, and contribution to the political government of the polity. Truth will bring meritocracy. If we produce families producing consistent meritocracy over generations we will produce nobility. If we produce a government by people from that nobility, we will produce an aristocracy. If that hierarchy of merit is defended by rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity, by universal standing in matters of the commons, then it is very hard for aristocracy to survive without in fact surviving on meritocracy. Same goes for entrepreneurs today. The problem was removing the requirement that one demonstrate meritocracy in order to participate in government., We call this error the universal franchise. But that was a mistake. Furthermore, instead of the aristocracy producing policy and the government acting as a jury, and the bureaucracy enforcing it, we gave the decision to the government and removed the veto of the aristocracy. That’s the problem. Demonstrated excellence is the only test of merit.

  • Some Form of Lying Is Almost Always Cowardice

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:25 AM

    “The reason people are engaging in some form of lying is almost always cowardice.”- Curt Doolittle

    • Everyone who has one of their cherished ideas challenged, especially if they’ve invested a lot in it, feels fear of being wrong (pride hurt, having to admit weakness & not “knowing it all”). After a while it gets easier, but those of us who have said “I was wrong” or “wow I was so clueless about this before” dozens or hundreds of times, and have spent our entire adult lives voraciously reading searching for greater understanding, sometimes forget how hard it is for normal people to admit they were wrong or open up to info that challenges an idea they hold.

    • Leftists are scared s***less of the consequences of “everyone is not equal in ability” (facing the brutality of life without a salve of lies to give false hope of a future utopia)

    • Ancaps/libertarians are often heavily invested in their ideas of course, and can often be afraid of the idea that “if you don’t contribute to the commons you will not stop parasites and in fact you are a parasite upon the commons in which others invest”. (We are pointing out that they have a responsibility they didn’t think they had.)

    • Some/many civnats (not all – some learn very fast) are scared of the personal cost they could face in our current society for talking about inherent group racial differences (group patterns)

    • Some/many Christians (not all) are scared of criticism of, or losing, something they value – a belief system that provides a salve against the brutality of reality via a future hope that “everything will be made right one day”, an alternate status hierarchy (“if I pray and do good God will reward me someday and I will be higher status than people who have a lot of money or power”), and a genuine group or team where they feel safe and accepted without having to do much other than express belief in the supernatural and not be a bother (the requirement to submit to dogma rather than operate by falsification is not healthy, but “a place to belong” where you trust those around you is a great thing). Especially because they often view “being a Christian” as their primary identity, they often have a strong negative reaction to any criticism of Christianity.

    These people are just “being human”. But we’re not gonna lie just to make them feel better. The left is our enemy, plain & simple. Ancaps/lolberts are learning fast as enemies flow through our open borders & as it becomes more and more obvious that there is a critical mass of humanity that cannot be persuaded/taught not to be parasites but must be stopped by force, which requires commons. The civnats are learning as the pain of losing & fear of the left’s craziness (which will escalate & escalate til at latest after TX goes blue) overpowers their fear of being too politically incorrect. The Christians as a group have no solution, no constitution, no insight to take the Right from losing to winning, the vast majority of their leaders/pastors/priests do not speak the truth on race & may never do so, but there is a brand of Christian political leader (James Fox Higgins, Daryl Kane) starting to fill the market for non-cucked Christian political speakers/leaders. (The Christian people themselves are faster and more willing to escape cuckiness than their leaders, just as with the Right as a whole.) As I often say, the grassroots Right is virtually 100% united on what we want TO STOP (via-negativa). The civnats just don’t realize it takes race realism to do it, and the right-wing Christians just have a hard time when the tendency of Christianity to be used as a tool of cuckiness both in history and now is pointed out. But both these groups in practicality want to STOP the same dysgenic/leftist/parasitic behaviours/outcomes that the rest of the grassroots Right wants to stop. Thus, we CAN agree on a constitution that primarily is about what our enemies CANNOT/MUST NOT do.

  • Some Form of Lying Is Almost Always Cowardice

    Oct 12, 2019, 11:25 AM

    “The reason people are engaging in some form of lying is almost always cowardice.”- Curt Doolittle

    • Everyone who has one of their cherished ideas challenged, especially if they’ve invested a lot in it, feels fear of being wrong (pride hurt, having to admit weakness & not “knowing it all”). After a while it gets easier, but those of us who have said “I was wrong” or “wow I was so clueless about this before” dozens or hundreds of times, and have spent our entire adult lives voraciously reading searching for greater understanding, sometimes forget how hard it is for normal people to admit they were wrong or open up to info that challenges an idea they hold.

    • Leftists are scared s***less of the consequences of “everyone is not equal in ability” (facing the brutality of life without a salve of lies to give false hope of a future utopia)

    • Ancaps/libertarians are often heavily invested in their ideas of course, and can often be afraid of the idea that “if you don’t contribute to the commons you will not stop parasites and in fact you are a parasite upon the commons in which others invest”. (We are pointing out that they have a responsibility they didn’t think they had.)

    • Some/many civnats (not all – some learn very fast) are scared of the personal cost they could face in our current society for talking about inherent group racial differences (group patterns)

    • Some/many Christians (not all) are scared of criticism of, or losing, something they value – a belief system that provides a salve against the brutality of reality via a future hope that “everything will be made right one day”, an alternate status hierarchy (“if I pray and do good God will reward me someday and I will be higher status than people who have a lot of money or power”), and a genuine group or team where they feel safe and accepted without having to do much other than express belief in the supernatural and not be a bother (the requirement to submit to dogma rather than operate by falsification is not healthy, but “a place to belong” where you trust those around you is a great thing). Especially because they often view “being a Christian” as their primary identity, they often have a strong negative reaction to any criticism of Christianity.

    These people are just “being human”. But we’re not gonna lie just to make them feel better. The left is our enemy, plain & simple. Ancaps/lolberts are learning fast as enemies flow through our open borders & as it becomes more and more obvious that there is a critical mass of humanity that cannot be persuaded/taught not to be parasites but must be stopped by force, which requires commons. The civnats are learning as the pain of losing & fear of the left’s craziness (which will escalate & escalate til at latest after TX goes blue) overpowers their fear of being too politically incorrect. The Christians as a group have no solution, no constitution, no insight to take the Right from losing to winning, the vast majority of their leaders/pastors/priests do not speak the truth on race & may never do so, but there is a brand of Christian political leader (James Fox Higgins, Daryl Kane) starting to fill the market for non-cucked Christian political speakers/leaders. (The Christian people themselves are faster and more willing to escape cuckiness than their leaders, just as with the Right as a whole.) As I often say, the grassroots Right is virtually 100% united on what we want TO STOP (via-negativa). The civnats just don’t realize it takes race realism to do it, and the right-wing Christians just have a hard time when the tendency of Christianity to be used as a tool of cuckiness both in history and now is pointed out. But both these groups in practicality want to STOP the same dysgenic/leftist/parasitic behaviours/outcomes that the rest of the grassroots Right wants to stop. Thus, we CAN agree on a constitution that primarily is about what our enemies CANNOT/MUST NOT do.

  • The Declaration of Independence, Equality Clause

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:42 PM A look into the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson By JWarren Prescott The declaration of independence’ equality clause refers to the equality of self-evident, unalienable (natural) rights among people – it does not mean anything beyond that. Natural rights of namely, Life, Liberty and Property. (and those rights derived from these such as self-preservation and defense) It does not mean that men and women should earn the same amount for the same work. It does not mean that we should initiate social reforms to assure affirmative action or racial quotas. And, it certainly does not mean that everyone is gonna get (or entitled to) the same opportunities as your neighbor. These are not rights, but they are coercion for resources. Jefferson was was very precise with his language and wrote the Declaration of Independence to make the case to england about the philosophical justification for secession and independence. he anticipated the counter argument from the royalist perspective, i.e. the divine right of kings. This is why he when to the philosophical basis of rights and that is natural law – in this natural state, there is no distinction of race, class or status. John Locke and Hobbes were influential in Jefferson’s thoughts on this. I would also say that Jefferson was shaking with fear as he was writing to the King. England was just about the strongest nation in the world and here is Jefferson assigned the duty to word a document in just the right way to make a logical and reasonable case and not be hung at the post…. Class, race or sex was the furthest thing from his mind.

  • The Declaration of Independence, Equality Clause

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:42 PM A look into the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson By JWarren Prescott The declaration of independence’ equality clause refers to the equality of self-evident, unalienable (natural) rights among people – it does not mean anything beyond that. Natural rights of namely, Life, Liberty and Property. (and those rights derived from these such as self-preservation and defense) It does not mean that men and women should earn the same amount for the same work. It does not mean that we should initiate social reforms to assure affirmative action or racial quotas. And, it certainly does not mean that everyone is gonna get (or entitled to) the same opportunities as your neighbor. These are not rights, but they are coercion for resources. Jefferson was was very precise with his language and wrote the Declaration of Independence to make the case to england about the philosophical justification for secession and independence. he anticipated the counter argument from the royalist perspective, i.e. the divine right of kings. This is why he when to the philosophical basis of rights and that is natural law – in this natural state, there is no distinction of race, class or status. John Locke and Hobbes were influential in Jefferson’s thoughts on this. I would also say that Jefferson was shaking with fear as he was writing to the King. England was just about the strongest nation in the world and here is Jefferson assigned the duty to word a document in just the right way to make a logical and reasonable case and not be hung at the post…. Class, race or sex was the furthest thing from his mind.

  • The Difference Between Error and Fraud

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:45 PM

    —“The difference between error and fraud is that an error implies good intentions, and people want to trade in their good intentions for a discount on the costs they themselves pay for the results of their error.”—Rustle More

  • The Difference Between Error and Fraud

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:45 PM

    —“The difference between error and fraud is that an error implies good intentions, and people want to trade in their good intentions for a discount on the costs they themselves pay for the results of their error.”—Rustle More

  • Ex-Propertarians Always Sound Like Jilted Ex-Girlfriends

    Oct 12, 2019, 1:50 PM by Predmetsky Rosenborg Ex-Propertarians always sound like jilted ex-girlfriends:

    –“and that non-operationalizable “abrahamism” word”–

    Operationalizing abrahamism is easy…high verbal IQ (median about 129) combined with low visual-spatial (there goes the calculating for physical costs and forces…) care-harm fundamentalism produced by high openness to experience (often correlated with high schizotypy) and agreeableness, moral module predisposes to vulnerable rather than grandiose narcissism (or callous-unemotional as a stand-alone construct), and the predictably high dispositional envy that accompanies it, leading to reversal of hierarchy (the good are evil and the bad are good) — Christianity is Jewish hatred’s most delicate flower of ressentiment rather than its repudiation. All of these things have been operationalized with as much precision as you can find in good psychometrics anywhere. What I’m interested in is in operationalizing sex differences as inherently relative to race (to say nothing of species) rather than considering them as stand-alone constructs. For example, East Asian masculinity and Ashkenazi masculinity and Caucasian masculinity must always be operationalized and studied together and can only ever be separated analytically. sort of like how some lemur species are female-dominant for biological reasons. Most lemur species are female dominant, but only most. So we can speak of mouse lemur (microcebus)-femininity, dwarf lemur (cheirogaleidaes)-femininity, mongoose lemur (lemuridae)-femininity as female dominant instances whereas brown lemur-femininity is more submissive.