Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Abrahamism as Lying to Distract from Evolutionary Denialism

    by Martin Štěpán and Curt Doolittle [S]tephen J Gould was posing as an evolutionary biologist where in reality, he was an evolutionary denialist. Liars all: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. These people are all evolutionary denialists. Every single one of them. That’s what separates them from the european intellectual tradition, and why they were wrong about everything. Why do you think they evolved at the same time as Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche? Why do you think you have control over the lies your telling now, or that any of these people had control over the lies they were telling? In order to prevent falsehood, we categorize lying as not trying to lie, but as not performing due diligence against lying. If you try to justify a prior – you’re lying. What science did these people do: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. The scientific method exists to stop you from a justifying a prior, a cognitive bias – or a group’s mythology. They didn’t do any science. They made it up. Abrahamism = Evolutionary Denialism. Why?

    Curt Doolittle Martin Štěpán this segue of yours sort of completes the picture as the female strategy against evolutionary reality. I mean in the end that’s what it’s all reducible to – evolutionary denialism.

    Bill Joslin the incentive towit, raising children that may or may not be evolutionarily viable i.e. compensate for thoughts of infanticide and or, protect malinvestment

  • Abrahamism as Lying to Distract from Evolutionary Denialism

    by Martin Štěpán and Curt Doolittle [S]tephen J Gould was posing as an evolutionary biologist where in reality, he was an evolutionary denialist. Liars all: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. These people are all evolutionary denialists. Every single one of them. That’s what separates them from the european intellectual tradition, and why they were wrong about everything. Why do you think they evolved at the same time as Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche? Why do you think you have control over the lies your telling now, or that any of these people had control over the lies they were telling? In order to prevent falsehood, we categorize lying as not trying to lie, but as not performing due diligence against lying. If you try to justify a prior – you’re lying. What science did these people do: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. The scientific method exists to stop you from a justifying a prior, a cognitive bias – or a group’s mythology. They didn’t do any science. They made it up. Abrahamism = Evolutionary Denialism. Why?

    Curt Doolittle Martin Štěpán this segue of yours sort of completes the picture as the female strategy against evolutionary reality. I mean in the end that’s what it’s all reducible to – evolutionary denialism.

    Bill Joslin the incentive towit, raising children that may or may not be evolutionarily viable i.e. compensate for thoughts of infanticide and or, protect malinvestment

  • Religion Without Lies Is Possible:

    [T]he alternative to religion of lies, is european, history, stoicism (mindfulness), epicureanism (living within your means), ancestor worship (recognition of debts of intergenerational transfer), the play (tragedy), sport(hunt) and festival (feast). No more lies. My exploration of paganism is reducible to the ethnocentric advantage of ancestor worship, the raising of ancestors to archetypes, and the market adaptability of the pantheon of archetypes without the need for altering the group strategy or narrative. In other words, it facilitates the natural hierarchy of abilities, and it eliminates the need for lying that produces anchoring. Like many things our greco roman ancestors had most of the institutions correct – they overextended into civilizational diversity and encountered anceitn primitive people bent on lying.

  • Religion Without Lies Is Possible:

    [T]he alternative to religion of lies, is european, history, stoicism (mindfulness), epicureanism (living within your means), ancestor worship (recognition of debts of intergenerational transfer), the play (tragedy), sport(hunt) and festival (feast). No more lies. My exploration of paganism is reducible to the ethnocentric advantage of ancestor worship, the raising of ancestors to archetypes, and the market adaptability of the pantheon of archetypes without the need for altering the group strategy or narrative. In other words, it facilitates the natural hierarchy of abilities, and it eliminates the need for lying that produces anchoring. Like many things our greco roman ancestors had most of the institutions correct – they overextended into civilizational diversity and encountered anceitn primitive people bent on lying.

  • Truth in Ethnocentrism

    —“Baiting people into the same Ethno-supremacist bullshit that is the main characteristic of modern day Israel? … Pilpul.. … Still some sharpening to do here.”—Noel Fritsch

    Are you saying that small, homogenous, low power distance, polities under rule of law, and their naturally limited capacity for fiat currency inflation don’t demonstrate the optimum mixed economies for both trade and redistribution? Are you saying ethnocentrism isn’t the optimum group strategy? Are you saying that ethno-supremacism isn’t a necessary property of ethnocentrism? Are you saying that europeans are not demonstrably superior genetically, culturally, scientifically, medically, technologically, institutionally, civilizationally to all other civilizations in the ancient and modern worlds? Are you the one engaging in deceit? I don’t use pilpul – it requires internal inconsistency and P-logic prevents internal inconsistency.

  • Truth in Ethnocentrism

    —“Baiting people into the same Ethno-supremacist bullshit that is the main characteristic of modern day Israel? … Pilpul.. … Still some sharpening to do here.”—Noel Fritsch

    Are you saying that small, homogenous, low power distance, polities under rule of law, and their naturally limited capacity for fiat currency inflation don’t demonstrate the optimum mixed economies for both trade and redistribution? Are you saying ethnocentrism isn’t the optimum group strategy? Are you saying that ethno-supremacism isn’t a necessary property of ethnocentrism? Are you saying that europeans are not demonstrably superior genetically, culturally, scientifically, medically, technologically, institutionally, civilizationally to all other civilizations in the ancient and modern worlds? Are you the one engaging in deceit? I don’t use pilpul – it requires internal inconsistency and P-logic prevents internal inconsistency.

  • The Consistency of European Natural Religions

    THE CONSISTENCY OF EUROPEAN NATURAL RELIGIONS

    —“The transition in Hesiod’s theogony from primordial forces of nature (Titans) through the Titanomachy where the immortals gain mastery over these forces is the same sequence found in the Scandinavian transition from the older Vanir nature gods to the Aesir.”—Scott De Warren

    OUR DESTINY IS GOD HOOD

  • The Consistency of European Natural Religions

    THE CONSISTENCY OF EUROPEAN NATURAL RELIGIONS

    —“The transition in Hesiod’s theogony from primordial forces of nature (Titans) through the Titanomachy where the immortals gain mastery over these forces is the same sequence found in the Scandinavian transition from the older Vanir nature gods to the Aesir.”—Scott De Warren

    OUR DESTINY IS GOD HOOD

  • The Full Circle of Currency

    Currency Started as Debt Tokens, and has returned to debt tokens. Under P-Constitutional reforms, the cycle will be complete.  Although more technically they are shares in the state or economy, issued in print, coin, or digital record as currency, and functioning as debt tokens.  Familiar Analogy: you go to the amusement park. You buy tokens from the park. You redeem the tokens for rides and games. The owners of rides and games redeem tickets with the park owners. The purpose in this case is to ensure the park owners get their cut (tax, fee), because the incentive to skim (clip coins) is eliminated. Reversing the familiar analogy: you buy from a merchant on credit, the state issues debt tokens (currency) to you. And you later pay the debt plus a fee using those tokens, and the state redistributes them.  The present problem is that it’s not the state (you) collecting the fees for having borrowed from yourself. Instead, the state should largely exist by finance and credit that is largely privatized against the interests of the people.

    • by Bill Joslin –
      From what I understand currency evolved for debt tracking before it was used for trade. It served as an in-group tally of debts within small communities that distributed resources and only engaged in formal trade across groups). (Greaber’s Debt)
      Oddly we’ve come full circle with currency created when debts are issued.

    -by Paul Franklin – Coinage, then, might have been an attempt to create professional armies to avoid paying them through plunder? Philanthropic. Paper money, according to Ezra Pound, was ‘philanthropic’ invention of a Chinese Emperor in a drought, issued to the starving illiterate peasants that they might buy enough of the grain they grew from the Barons who kept it, and not die. The barons redeem the paper for the promise of gold declared for their presentation before the Emperor.  

  • The Full Circle of Currency

    Currency Started as Debt Tokens, and has returned to debt tokens. Under P-Constitutional reforms, the cycle will be complete.  Although more technically they are shares in the state or economy, issued in print, coin, or digital record as currency, and functioning as debt tokens.  Familiar Analogy: you go to the amusement park. You buy tokens from the park. You redeem the tokens for rides and games. The owners of rides and games redeem tickets with the park owners. The purpose in this case is to ensure the park owners get their cut (tax, fee), because the incentive to skim (clip coins) is eliminated. Reversing the familiar analogy: you buy from a merchant on credit, the state issues debt tokens (currency) to you. And you later pay the debt plus a fee using those tokens, and the state redistributes them.  The present problem is that it’s not the state (you) collecting the fees for having borrowed from yourself. Instead, the state should largely exist by finance and credit that is largely privatized against the interests of the people.

    • by Bill Joslin –
      From what I understand currency evolved for debt tracking before it was used for trade. It served as an in-group tally of debts within small communities that distributed resources and only engaged in formal trade across groups). (Greaber’s Debt)
      Oddly we’ve come full circle with currency created when debts are issued.

    -by Paul Franklin – Coinage, then, might have been an attempt to create professional armies to avoid paying them through plunder? Philanthropic. Paper money, according to Ezra Pound, was ‘philanthropic’ invention of a Chinese Emperor in a drought, issued to the starving illiterate peasants that they might buy enough of the grain they grew from the Barons who kept it, and not die. The barons redeem the paper for the promise of gold declared for their presentation before the Emperor.