Source: Original Site Post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544198921 Timestamp) —“Curt: Post the covers of the ten books that most influenced you over the past ten years over 10 days. Tag me in your posts.”—Lance Kennedy You have me thinking here …. You know, books that affect you, books that helped you articulate ideas, and books you would recommend in retrospect are three different things. That which affects you is a function of your condition at the moment in development time and space. Books that are useful in your work are something else. Books that you would recommend to others would be something else yet again. Books that affected me more than any other were reading Encyclopedia Britannica and … (can’t remember the other one) all the way through three or four times… lol. There is a ‘pattern’ across the NPOV, and Western Tradition, and “Nobility” in which those books were written. And in retrospect I think it was that ‘education’ combined with study of war through the ages, and reading science fiction, that affected me most. Even today, the readiness of wikipedia, amazon, google scholar, and economic web sites – to find an idea and work through references is more influential than any given book. Why? Context. Contemporary education (by design) is context free in an attempt to undermine western civilization and it’s narrative, and therefore our moral and normative perpetuation of it. Teens it was 20th C Technology Mythology: – Time Enough For Love by Heinlein – Everything by Clarke – Everything by Bova and Ellison – A Wizard of Earthsea – Dune – Neuromancer and Snow Crash I find today, that people on ‘our side’ have abandoned the optimism of the technological era (sci fi) given our failures and have returned to the secular-theological era of the essayists (most commonly, the pessimism of nietzsche and evola and their anglo peers. Noticeably different from the hopefulness of the 20th c conservatives that ‘the left will learn’.) In college it was the study of art – without question – rewriting my mental image of mankind from military, technological, and scientific to artistic and civilizational was helpful, just as rewriting it into institutional, economic, and geographic was helpful. Just as rewriting it as what I call the grammars has been helpful. I might say that programming and designing software systems served me the way mathematics and logic did not – due to the operational logic of programming transforming the ideal to the real. I might say that Huntington, Hayek, Popper, Becker, and Hoppe, influenced my thought the most – but it wouldn’t be a single book – it would be learning how they thought by reading all their books. I might say that certain people’s works helped me a great deal: Hawkins on intelligence, Everyone’s IQ research, Everything by Simon Baron Cohen on autism and male-female brains, Haidt’s work in toto, Dawkins’ Selfish Gene, Diamond’s Third Chimp, and GST, everyone’s work on genetic history of man – particularly Reich’s new book. (What’s her name’s) book on mathematical philosophy. Olson’s on commons. Hick’s postmodernism definitely helped a great deal. Armstrong, Keegan, Mallory, and Todd on civilizational development helped. Nietzsche’s birth of tragedy was definitely a huge influence – even if I found it better to read ABOUT it by others, than in his own words translated into english – continental prose makes me intellectually gag. So what books influenced me most in the past ten years vs what books would I recommend over the past ten years, over what authors would I recommend over the past ten years…. hmmm… Well I’ll give that some thought, and see what I can post…. Thanks. ๐Ÿ˜‰ (My recommended reading list is here: propertarianism.com/reading-list/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544198921 Timestamp) —“Curt: Post the covers of the ten books that most influenced you over the past ten years over 10 days. Tag me in your posts.”—Lance Kennedy You have me thinking here …. You know, books that affect you, books that helped you articulate ideas, and books you would recommend in retrospect are three different things. That which affects you is a function of your condition at the moment in development time and space. Books that are useful in your work are something else. Books that you would recommend to others would be something else yet again. Books that affected me more than any other were reading Encyclopedia Britannica and … (can’t remember the other one) all the way through three or four times… lol. There is a ‘pattern’ across the NPOV, and Western Tradition, and “Nobility” in which those books were written. And in retrospect I think it was that ‘education’ combined with study of war through the ages, and reading science fiction, that affected me most. Even today, the readiness of wikipedia, amazon, google scholar, and economic web sites – to find an idea and work through references is more influential than any given book. Why? Context. Contemporary education (by design) is context free in an attempt to undermine western civilization and it’s narrative, and therefore our moral and normative perpetuation of it. Teens it was 20th C Technology Mythology: – Time Enough For Love by Heinlein – Everything by Clarke – Everything by Bova and Ellison – A Wizard of Earthsea – Dune – Neuromancer and Snow Crash I find today, that people on ‘our side’ have abandoned the optimism of the technological era (sci fi) given our failures and have returned to the secular-theological era of the essayists (most commonly, the pessimism of nietzsche and evola and their anglo peers. Noticeably different from the hopefulness of the 20th c conservatives that ‘the left will learn’.) In college it was the study of art – without question – rewriting my mental image of mankind from military, technological, and scientific to artistic and civilizational was helpful, just as rewriting it into institutional, economic, and geographic was helpful. Just as rewriting it as what I call the grammars has been helpful. I might say that programming and designing software systems served me the way mathematics and logic did not – due to the operational logic of programming transforming the ideal to the real. I might say that Huntington, Hayek, Popper, Becker, and Hoppe, influenced my thought the most – but it wouldn’t be a single book – it would be learning how they thought by reading all their books. I might say that certain people’s works helped me a great deal: Hawkins on intelligence, Everyone’s IQ research, Everything by Simon Baron Cohen on autism and male-female brains, Haidt’s work in toto, Dawkins’ Selfish Gene, Diamond’s Third Chimp, and GST, everyone’s work on genetic history of man – particularly Reich’s new book. (What’s her name’s) book on mathematical philosophy. Olson’s on commons. Hick’s postmodernism definitely helped a great deal. Armstrong, Keegan, Mallory, and Todd on civilizational development helped. Nietzsche’s birth of tragedy was definitely a huge influence – even if I found it better to read ABOUT it by others, than in his own words translated into english – continental prose makes me intellectually gag. So what books influenced me most in the past ten years vs what books would I recommend over the past ten years, over what authors would I recommend over the past ten years…. hmmm… Well I’ll give that some thought, and see what I can post…. Thanks. ๐Ÿ˜‰ (My recommended reading list is here: propertarianism.com/reading-list/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544281590 Timestamp) STYLE GUIDE: ATTRIBUTIONS “by” = Written by “h/t” = Forwarded, Recommended by “via” = Published on site, page, whatever… —“quote”—Author being quoted —myquote—Current Author So: THIS IS THE TITLE by John Doe, via His Web Site, h/t Mary Roe this_is_a_link … … ( FILE UNDER: FORMATTING OF POSTS )

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544196465 Timestamp) EMMANUEL TODD’S FAMILY STRUCTURES 1. Absolute Nuclear Family: a. Spouse selection: Free, but obligatory exogamy. b. Inheritance: Indifference – no precise rules, frequent use of wills. c. Family Home: no cohabitation of married children with their parents. d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions: Anglo-Saxon world, Holland, Denmark. e. Representative Ideology: Christianity, Capitalism, `Libertarian’ Liberalism, and Feminism.

    1. Egalitarian Nuclear Family:
      a. Spouse selection: Free, but obligatory exogamy.
      b. Inheritance: Egalitarian – equality between brothers.
      c. Family Home: no cohabitation of married children with their parents.
      d. Representative Nations, Regions: northern France, northern Italy, central & southern Spain, central Portugal, Greece, Romania, Poland, Latin America, Ethiopia.
      e. Representative Ideology: Christianity (Catholicism); the “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” form of Liberalism.
    2. Authoritarian Family:
      a. Spouse selection: Parents, little or no marriage between children of brothers.
      b. Inheritance: Anti-Egalitarian – inequality between brothers, transfer of patrimony to one son.
      c. Family Home: cohabitation of the married heir with his parents.
      d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions: Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Bohemia, Scotland, Ireland, peripheral regions of France, northern (Basque) Spain, northern Portugal, Japan, Korea, Jews, Romany Gypsies.
      e. Representative Ideology: Fascism, various separatist and autonomous (anti-universalist) movements.

    4: Exogamous Community Family: a. Spouse selection: Parents, no marriage between the children of two brothers. b. Inheritance: Egalitarian – equality between brothers. c. Family Home: cohabitation of married sons with their parents. d. Representative Nations, Regions: Russia, Yugoslavia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, Albania, central Italy, China, Vietnam, Cuba and north India. e. Representative Ideology: Communism, Socialism.

    1. Endogamous Community Family:
      a. Spouse selection: Custom, frequent marriage between the children of brothers.
      b. Inheritance: Egalitarian – equality between brothers.
      c. Family Home: cohabitation of married sons with their parents.
      d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions: Arab world, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan.
      e. Representative Ideology: Islam.
    2. Asymmetrical Community Family:
      a. Spouse selection: Custom, prohibition on marriages between the children of brothers, but a preference for marriages between the children of brothers and sisters.
      b. Inheritance: Egalitarian – equality between brothers.
      c. Family Home: cohabitation of married sons with their parents.
      d. Representative Regions: southern India.
      e. Representative Ideology: Same

    7: Anomic Family: a. Spouse selection: Free, but without obligatory exogamy; consanguine marriage possible and sometimes frequent. b. Inheritance: Indifference – uncertainty about equality between brothers, inheritance rules egalitarian in theory but uncertain in practice. c. Family Home: cohabitation of married children with parents rejected in theory but accepted in practice. d. Representative Nations, Peoples, Regions: e. Representative Ideology: Buddhism, Christianity, and Communism, but potentially anything.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544296151 Timestamp) FYI: James Fox Higgins is streaming his Christmas Special containing our talk from this morning at at 4:00am EST (GMT/UTC-5) on Christmas Day. And apparently it’s lots of hours of entertainment mixed together. So it’ll be sometime during that period.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544293231 Timestamp) I just want to point out that Anglo Christians run away like cowards when challenged. Russians don’t run. They watch. They correct errors. They listen. They learn. They hold their faith. Why? Because faith is not something to argue like the law. Orthodoxy didn’t malinvest in christianity, because christianity never was the source of Russian corruption of oppression or parasitism. It certainly was in europe. One simply performs christian rituals and learns from them. One does not treat them as logic, law, or science. And one does not cower from the the dissonance between faith, reason, and science. Germans are similar in that they all too often cannot conceive of the difference between the moral, good, and true. They straddle the world. However, they are the most ‘correct’ of the civilizations – at least prior to the world wars under which their prussianism was conquered ‘unjustly’. So again, the high trust west, lower trust catholics, lower trust orthodox, and lowest trust east asians. A division of labor of the circumpolar peoples. High risk and innovation to low risk and conservation. Christianity is weak because christians are weak.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544293231 Timestamp) I just want to point out that Anglo Christians run away like cowards when challenged. Russians don’t run. They watch. They correct errors. They listen. They learn. They hold their faith. Why? Because faith is not something to argue like the law. Orthodoxy didn’t malinvest in christianity, because christianity never was the source of Russian corruption of oppression or parasitism. It certainly was in europe. One simply performs christian rituals and learns from them. One does not treat them as logic, law, or science. And one does not cower from the the dissonance between faith, reason, and science. Germans are similar in that they all too often cannot conceive of the difference between the moral, good, and true. They straddle the world. However, they are the most ‘correct’ of the civilizations – at least prior to the world wars under which their prussianism was conquered ‘unjustly’. So again, the high trust west, lower trust catholics, lower trust orthodox, and lowest trust east asians. A division of labor of the circumpolar peoples. High risk and innovation to low risk and conservation. Christianity is weak because christians are weak.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544292814 Timestamp) —“Iรขย€ย™ve had enough of your heresies. Time to part ways.”—Matthew McLester In other words: “I’m taking by room-temperature-iq-ball and going home, because disapproval and rejection is my only substitute for argument.” I don’t write for simple people. I write the law that governs all people, not just the simple. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544292814 Timestamp) —“Iรขย€ย™ve had enough of your heresies. Time to part ways.”—Matthew McLester In other words: “I’m taking by room-temperature-iq-ball and going home, because disapproval and rejection is my only substitute for argument.” I don’t write for simple people. I write the law that governs all people, not just the simple. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • Consciousness > Cooperation > Narration > Animism > Anthropomorphism > Idealism

    Consciousness > Cooperation > Narration > Animism > Anthropomorphism > Idealism > Abrahamism (judaism, islam) > Christian Theology > Rational Philosophy > Law > Science > Logic > Mathematics

    December 8th, 2018 1:11 PM