Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Islam and Byzantium: The Economic and Intellectual Dark Ages

    There are very good reasons that Justinian and Constantine, from the safety of Byzantium, used Syrian and Judaic thought to attack the Greek and Roman Institutions of learning. They did it with malice, intent, and forethought, and while it is true that islam caused the ECONOMIC dark age, the SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL dark age is impossible to divorce from the rise and fall of Christianity. That’s just the evidence. I don’t see any ‘good’ in christianity that was not in roman and greek thought prior to christianity: Aryanism.

    Lies: false promises of utopia in an afterlife, like false promises of economic and status equality, are cheap means of government and parasitism. Rule, using Rule of Law by Natural Law, under the promise of violence, in exchange for taxation (commissions) for the creation of increasingly profitable markets is about as truthful as one can get, for the simple reason that it contains no via-positiva promises, and leaves choice of pursuits to the ruled.

  • If Christianity is Dead, We Still Have a Problem. But At Least We Know Most of the Answer

    IF CHRISTIANITY IS DEAD, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM Christianity as we know it is dead. The rituals are not unique nor terribly effective compared to the alterative major religions. The myths and lessons are suitable to those living at subsistence levels. The priesthoods are populated by those who can console us from the forces of nature, but not those who can educate, advise, lead, and decide, and as such,, form both a local head of community of common interest, and counter to the state. But the philosophy is exceptional as it seems to create trust, ‘openness’, encourage salvation through action, creates commercial prosperity everywhere it goes. This combination of interpersonal optimism and the Aryan predilection for markets, and stoic natural law is nearly as effective as our greco-roman civilization. So assuming the word ‘philosophy‘ means ‘method of decision making’, then of the spectrum of Religion, Political philosophy, Ethical Philosophy, Personal Philosophy, Law, and Science, I would state that transcendence, sovereignty, natural law, male stoicism/female epicureanism, the common empirical law, and Testimonialism are probably the optimum combination for those who wish to LEAD humanity, rather than to be led by others, by some some other strategy.

    But natural law is skeptical, and incomplete without christian optimism. In other words, christian optimism tells us that if enough of us invest in trust, and tolerate minor losses, we will produce it, and produce outsized gains. The problem we face, is we need a binding narrative, and we need better binding rituals and we need better local teachers, advisors, leaders. To create the mythos we must distill it from our many authors into our own ‘bible’. Because we learn from loose general principle, to more specific general rule, to more precise rules of science. And without the binding narrative it appears to be very difficult to bind general literary rules and precise rules of science into a portfolio of decisions across the entire possible spectrum in which we must make decisions in modernity. I have been struggling with this problem for two years now and while I have my ups and downs, the problem remains the same: without an effort equal to the council of nicea, or the first american constitutional convention, or a frankfurt school, it will be difficult to produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization – a ‘book’ that beyond which no man nor state may tread.  It is necessary to restore teaching, advising, and leadership, and community. But also as a means of defense against the semitic technologies of deception that arose from the innovation of abrahamic deceit. And a ritual that is costly so that men defend the law in that book against all attacks.

  • If Christianity is Dead, We Still Have a Problem. But At Least We Know Most of the Answer

    IF CHRISTIANITY IS DEAD, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM Christianity as we know it is dead. The rituals are not unique nor terribly effective compared to the alterative major religions. The myths and lessons are suitable to those living at subsistence levels. The priesthoods are populated by those who can console us from the forces of nature, but not those who can educate, advise, lead, and decide, and as such,, form both a local head of community of common interest, and counter to the state. But the philosophy is exceptional as it seems to create trust, ‘openness’, encourage salvation through action, creates commercial prosperity everywhere it goes. This combination of interpersonal optimism and the Aryan predilection for markets, and stoic natural law is nearly as effective as our greco-roman civilization. So assuming the word ‘philosophy‘ means ‘method of decision making’, then of the spectrum of Religion, Political philosophy, Ethical Philosophy, Personal Philosophy, Law, and Science, I would state that transcendence, sovereignty, natural law, male stoicism/female epicureanism, the common empirical law, and Testimonialism are probably the optimum combination for those who wish to LEAD humanity, rather than to be led by others, by some some other strategy.

    But natural law is skeptical, and incomplete without christian optimism. In other words, christian optimism tells us that if enough of us invest in trust, and tolerate minor losses, we will produce it, and produce outsized gains. The problem we face, is we need a binding narrative, and we need better binding rituals and we need better local teachers, advisors, leaders. To create the mythos we must distill it from our many authors into our own ‘bible’. Because we learn from loose general principle, to more specific general rule, to more precise rules of science. And without the binding narrative it appears to be very difficult to bind general literary rules and precise rules of science into a portfolio of decisions across the entire possible spectrum in which we must make decisions in modernity. I have been struggling with this problem for two years now and while I have my ups and downs, the problem remains the same: without an effort equal to the council of nicea, or the first american constitutional convention, or a frankfurt school, it will be difficult to produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization – a ‘book’ that beyond which no man nor state may tread.  It is necessary to restore teaching, advising, and leadership, and community. But also as a means of defense against the semitic technologies of deception that arose from the innovation of abrahamic deceit. And a ritual that is costly so that men defend the law in that book against all attacks.

  • Fitness etc.

    for archiving) Running is a very efficient form of energy expenditure and if you don’t overdo it, you won’t hurt yourself very easily. You can get the same value out of hiking or walking at the cost of increasing time at exercise. So running is just efficient. But it works the same muscle groups and it actually can make you injury prone unless its over uneven terrain. (Spoken as someone who spent a year taping his feet to recover from plantar fascia injuries.) One of the reasons that the military has always focused on marching twenty miles or more with gear is to build up minor muscles, build cardio, pulmonary, liver, and kidney efficiency, is that it’s makes you exhausted, but exposes you to little risk of injury. Moreover it depletes your brain and combined with surprise commands, teaches you how to function ‘explosively’ on demand even when you are cognitively impaired. If you look at the special forces guys they are athletes not weight lifters. It is far easier to pass endurance stress while retaining mental discipline – which is the test of special forces – if you are able to perform while physically and cognitively depleted.

    The problem is fitness vs bulk. The bigger you get the more calories, oxygen, cardio, and pulmonary you need, and you generally lose the most important ‘aryan’ advantages: speed, agility, and endurance (ooda loops). As far as I know complex motions like ‘rolling that big industrial tire’, chopping wood, crawling across grass or swimming, and climbing trees and ladders, all produce the best overall fitness without damage. (I have only had injuries lifting weights, because it is very easy to ‘overdo’ it on minor muscles with ) However, if you are careful and just lift a few heavy things a few times a week, plus walk a bit, you can achieve almost all of the good. So, weight decreases time. Unfortunately, those of us with asthma face a constant challenge. Even though I was the fastest sprinter in my class in grade school I have never been able to run distances. I can hike at fairly good pace now that I’m no longer seriously ill, and I can walk pretty much forever. And I can get away with a sprint. But lifting has become almost unbearable. When it was, for most of my life, my favorite way of staying fit. The most fit I have ever been is working an office job, using a simple barbell set at home before work. I naturally walk around a lot, even if writing. The big decline in my fitness was my long struggle with my health. When I tried crossfit while still carrying cancer around, I seriously thought it would die. It is non trivial to function competitively while deprived of sleep, water, food, while physically and mentally exhausted, hot or cold, and stressed from the possibility of being killed by a bullet at distance.

  • Fitness etc.

    for archiving) Running is a very efficient form of energy expenditure and if you don’t overdo it, you won’t hurt yourself very easily. You can get the same value out of hiking or walking at the cost of increasing time at exercise. So running is just efficient. But it works the same muscle groups and it actually can make you injury prone unless its over uneven terrain. (Spoken as someone who spent a year taping his feet to recover from plantar fascia injuries.) One of the reasons that the military has always focused on marching twenty miles or more with gear is to build up minor muscles, build cardio, pulmonary, liver, and kidney efficiency, is that it’s makes you exhausted, but exposes you to little risk of injury. Moreover it depletes your brain and combined with surprise commands, teaches you how to function ‘explosively’ on demand even when you are cognitively impaired. If you look at the special forces guys they are athletes not weight lifters. It is far easier to pass endurance stress while retaining mental discipline – which is the test of special forces – if you are able to perform while physically and cognitively depleted.

    The problem is fitness vs bulk. The bigger you get the more calories, oxygen, cardio, and pulmonary you need, and you generally lose the most important ‘aryan’ advantages: speed, agility, and endurance (ooda loops). As far as I know complex motions like ‘rolling that big industrial tire’, chopping wood, crawling across grass or swimming, and climbing trees and ladders, all produce the best overall fitness without damage. (I have only had injuries lifting weights, because it is very easy to ‘overdo’ it on minor muscles with ) However, if you are careful and just lift a few heavy things a few times a week, plus walk a bit, you can achieve almost all of the good. So, weight decreases time. Unfortunately, those of us with asthma face a constant challenge. Even though I was the fastest sprinter in my class in grade school I have never been able to run distances. I can hike at fairly good pace now that I’m no longer seriously ill, and I can walk pretty much forever. And I can get away with a sprint. But lifting has become almost unbearable. When it was, for most of my life, my favorite way of staying fit. The most fit I have ever been is working an office job, using a simple barbell set at home before work. I naturally walk around a lot, even if writing. The big decline in my fitness was my long struggle with my health. When I tried crossfit while still carrying cancer around, I seriously thought it would die. It is non trivial to function competitively while deprived of sleep, water, food, while physically and mentally exhausted, hot or cold, and stressed from the possibility of being killed by a bullet at distance.

  • Challenges in Teaching Propertarianism

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, or market government, one of the most common pitfalls a professor must avoid, is anchoring the student and freezing his innovations, while at the same time, gently correcting errors so that he or she continues to advance, but does not become dependent upon you. This is extremely difficult. The second problem is getting them past their limits. They generally hit their limits when they surpass the use of the technology (subject) to justify prior dispositions, and instead must now abandon their intuitions and priors – and rely on the logic of the system exclusively without the ability to test against the intuitions provided by their priors

    It’s at this point they generally freeze or fail, or grow frustrated, because they do not realize that they have been relying upon intuition, and merely learning a superior means of justifying their priors until now. Making the leap from using a logic to justify one’s priors, to the full dependence upon that logic despite it’s falsification of your priors is difficult – and more difficult the older you are (it certainly was hard for me). So some people progress fastest because they are simply learning how to justify priors, and can rely on testing propositions against memory and intuition. Others progress more slowly because they must constantly reform their intuitions and priors. The problem for the former is that they tend to have become used to ‘easy’ adoption of the technology and instead of incremental adjustment they must do all the work of self transition at once. This is why it is somewhat easier for us aspies because we actually tend to have few intuitionistic priors, and are more comfortable with fully rational or empirical statements independent upon reliance upon intuitions and priors. I can, by temperament, identify who will hit the wall, but not when – until I see it starting to occur. But it is almost impossible to break people through that wall. They must do it on their own. And in my experience, most of them fail. ( Unfortunately, some of them direct their frustration at me. This is understandable. It is however, unwarranted. ) So what can I learn from this? Well, it is one thing to look for participants to help me advance the work, and another to ask people learn a complete system. Luckily there are some people who are not bound by priors. Although very small in number. I can help people by completing the work rather than asking them to participate. This eliminates me as the axis, makes the courseware the axis. But in the end, truth is merciless to priors. And few people are sufficiently transcendent, and possess sufficient agency to abandon their priors – especially those who have invested so heavily in the argumentative justification of them.

  • Challenges in Teaching Propertarianism

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, or market government, one of the most common pitfalls a professor must avoid, is anchoring the student and freezing his innovations, while at the same time, gently correcting errors so that he or she continues to advance, but does not become dependent upon you. This is extremely difficult. The second problem is getting them past their limits. They generally hit their limits when they surpass the use of the technology (subject) to justify prior dispositions, and instead must now abandon their intuitions and priors – and rely on the logic of the system exclusively without the ability to test against the intuitions provided by their priors

    It’s at this point they generally freeze or fail, or grow frustrated, because they do not realize that they have been relying upon intuition, and merely learning a superior means of justifying their priors until now. Making the leap from using a logic to justify one’s priors, to the full dependence upon that logic despite it’s falsification of your priors is difficult – and more difficult the older you are (it certainly was hard for me). So some people progress fastest because they are simply learning how to justify priors, and can rely on testing propositions against memory and intuition. Others progress more slowly because they must constantly reform their intuitions and priors. The problem for the former is that they tend to have become used to ‘easy’ adoption of the technology and instead of incremental adjustment they must do all the work of self transition at once. This is why it is somewhat easier for us aspies because we actually tend to have few intuitionistic priors, and are more comfortable with fully rational or empirical statements independent upon reliance upon intuitions and priors. I can, by temperament, identify who will hit the wall, but not when – until I see it starting to occur. But it is almost impossible to break people through that wall. They must do it on their own. And in my experience, most of them fail. ( Unfortunately, some of them direct their frustration at me. This is understandable. It is however, unwarranted. ) So what can I learn from this? Well, it is one thing to look for participants to help me advance the work, and another to ask people learn a complete system. Luckily there are some people who are not bound by priors. Although very small in number. I can help people by completing the work rather than asking them to participate. This eliminates me as the axis, makes the courseware the axis. But in the end, truth is merciless to priors. And few people are sufficiently transcendent, and possess sufficient agency to abandon their priors – especially those who have invested so heavily in the argumentative justification of them.

  • Aryanism: The West Consists of Nation States or Ceases to Exist

    Anyone can build an empire with resources and technology to do so. You just can only live under the type of rule, institutions, and culture, necessary to maintain an empire. And that means european civilization retains many small nation states or it ceases to exist. Because you cannot have a high trust heterogeneous political order. It’s not possible. —“If your people are organically organized, clannish, tribal, egalitarian and have a thing for “purity” then they will also have high trust. You can expand, but you can’t build an empire or you’ll destroy it. Empires require bureaucracy and hierarchy as well as the extension of kinship to others. People that can’t (and didn’t!) do extended families can’t do empires. I guess It should be obvious.”— Markets for nations. Markets for regions. Markets for whatever we want – among our kin. We can build a civilization but we cannot build an empire.

    An empire by definition crosses ethnic and cultural lines. a civilization by definition is defined but ethnic and cultural lines. America is an empire and cannot therefore persist as a european civilization under common law.

  • Aryanism: The West Consists of Nation States or Ceases to Exist

    Anyone can build an empire with resources and technology to do so. You just can only live under the type of rule, institutions, and culture, necessary to maintain an empire. And that means european civilization retains many small nation states or it ceases to exist. Because you cannot have a high trust heterogeneous political order. It’s not possible. —“If your people are organically organized, clannish, tribal, egalitarian and have a thing for “purity” then they will also have high trust. You can expand, but you can’t build an empire or you’ll destroy it. Empires require bureaucracy and hierarchy as well as the extension of kinship to others. People that can’t (and didn’t!) do extended families can’t do empires. I guess It should be obvious.”— Markets for nations. Markets for regions. Markets for whatever we want – among our kin. We can build a civilization but we cannot build an empire.

    An empire by definition crosses ethnic and cultural lines. a civilization by definition is defined but ethnic and cultural lines. America is an empire and cannot therefore persist as a european civilization under common law.

  • Let Me Help You: Religions vs Laws

    Let me help you. Religions provide wisdom, and governments provide laws. If your religion conflates wisdom with law it is not a religion but a form of government masquerading as a cult. Ergo, if your religion contains laws it is a competitor to, not a compliment to, a government. As such it can be regulated, prohibited, and warred against if necessary. I am trying to find a way to talk about the fact that we have never had a conflationary system of thought (monotheism) in the west, and have always had separation of church (peasantry) and state (nobility) and burgher/freeman (commerce). And that the church (religion), the burgher (philosophy), and the state (law) all competed with their own narratives. The problem is the BINDING narrative. If christianity fails as teh binding narrative, how do we replace that binding narrative, yet preserve christianity for the underclasses (the weak) who need it? Germanicized christianity, even latinized christianity, differs from byzantine christianity, differs from judaism, differs from islamism, differs from egyptian and prior eras’ shamanism. Germanized christianity always possessed ALL models of thought, from the aristocratic and martial law, to the philosophy, to the religion of the poor. But we used each in its place. And christianity did serve as the majority doctrine since the vast majority of people were poor and ignorant. When that is true, it’s easy for the martial/legal, and the philosophhical/commercial to ‘go along’ with the civic binding narrative and rituals. The question is, now that the majority are not poor and ignorant, what is the binding narrative under which we can still make use of science, law, philosophy and christianity? I mean. christianity is fucking ridiculous. Church isn’t. Myth, Festival, Ritual, Discipline aren’t. They’re necessary. The content of jesus’ philosophy is trivial. The magical shit is nonsense. nothing but jewish and syrian and byzantine lies. the natural law that the church inherited from the romans and the stoics, and the science that the modern era inherited from the greeks and the engineering from romans is all there for us to use. History is there for us to use. By any measure we have ‘discovered’ that we, and less so the chinese, are ‘right’ and that everyone else is not only wrong but catastrophically and degeneratively wrong. So, how do we modernize the church, retain jesus’s (valuable teaching) but achieve in the modern world what Aquinas achieved in the ancient? how do we modernize the teachings of jesus, and the ancient lessons of babylonians so that they are compatible with the ancient lessons of the european peoples in greek, roman, germanic form?