[T]hank all of you. Especially those of you who have helped, advised, criticised, and supported me over the past few years. You know who you are. And that list is now so long I cannot type it. I thank god that I am so lucky that you are generous enough to share your time with me. Just a few years ago I thought I was dead. Now I realise I was just getting started. Could not have done it without you. Love you forever. Thank you for making the world a better place. Thank you for the privilege. God bless.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Dear Academy: No. A Liberal Education Is Not A Good Thing. It’s A Bad Thing.
[C]hristopher. It has become increasingly clear to me that a liberal education only performs its upper and upper middle class adult function as part of a triumvirate of the church’s youth and lower class teachings in myth and idealism, and the military’s middle class teenage training in duty, truth and testimony. We practice a hierarchy of religious systems in the west, none of which alone can produce the uniqueness of western man. Western mans differentiation from the rest is caused by our treatment of the beauty of nature as sacred, our martial universalism, heroism, and truthful testimony before the jury, later improved dramatically by chivalry, piety, and idealism by the church, further improved by the prosperity produced by commercial servicing of others under the Saxon North Sea and river trading civilization that we mistakenly call by one of its effects: Germanic Protestantism above the Hanjal line. The church was a contributor but not a cause. So far the academy post Darwin and post separation from the church, seems to have been a net detriment to western civilization. And the principle means by which the academy has been a net negative has been the adoption of the Cosmopolitan Pseudosciences which the 21st century is rapidly overthrowing: Boazian social science, Freudian psychology, Marxist economics, cantorian mathematics, Frankfurt school politics. And the puritanical offshoots of feminist ethics, postmodern propaganda, and philosophy. If Christianity if not monotheism was the first really great lie perpetuated by propagandizing then pseudoscience from the lectern replaced mysticism from the pulpit. First we learn myths, then reason then science. And those who cannot climb that ladder remain at the prior rung. And how can a classical liberal education exist without grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, history, and debate? At present it appears that the empirical science saves us from the liberal reason just as reason saves us from the Christian/Jewish:Egyptian/Babylonian mysticism of the great lie. So, pray tell, what is a liberal education? Because at present the evidence is quite clear that it is a device for teaching pseudoscience largely to women, absent the test of it by the logic of debate under logical laws of grammar and rhetoric that survive comparison with history, for the sole purpose of profiting from the process of selling them pseudoscience? This criticism.damns the academy, damns the incentives of professors and the academy, damns the content they profess, and damns the vast consequences of their teachings: the use of women voters to systematically dismantle rule of law, the great compromise that is the nuclear family, the inter-generational transfer of knowledge using savings and interest, and the second conquest of the west by pseudoscience women, slaves and immigrants – for profit. So completely similar to the first conquest of the west with the first great lie of monotheism by women, slaves, and immigrants. If anything we must damn the academy and the liberal education as nothing more than profiteering from the systematic destruction of western civilization. And I come to this conclusion from the data. Not from introspection, wishful thinking, and the stated ambitions of the academy – that would require rhetorical fallacy contrary to the evidence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/…/liberal-educati…
-
Dear Academy: No. A Liberal Education Is Not A Good Thing. It’s A Bad Thing.
[C]hristopher. It has become increasingly clear to me that a liberal education only performs its upper and upper middle class adult function as part of a triumvirate of the church’s youth and lower class teachings in myth and idealism, and the military’s middle class teenage training in duty, truth and testimony. We practice a hierarchy of religious systems in the west, none of which alone can produce the uniqueness of western man. Western mans differentiation from the rest is caused by our treatment of the beauty of nature as sacred, our martial universalism, heroism, and truthful testimony before the jury, later improved dramatically by chivalry, piety, and idealism by the church, further improved by the prosperity produced by commercial servicing of others under the Saxon North Sea and river trading civilization that we mistakenly call by one of its effects: Germanic Protestantism above the Hanjal line. The church was a contributor but not a cause. So far the academy post Darwin and post separation from the church, seems to have been a net detriment to western civilization. And the principle means by which the academy has been a net negative has been the adoption of the Cosmopolitan Pseudosciences which the 21st century is rapidly overthrowing: Boazian social science, Freudian psychology, Marxist economics, cantorian mathematics, Frankfurt school politics. And the puritanical offshoots of feminist ethics, postmodern propaganda, and philosophy. If Christianity if not monotheism was the first really great lie perpetuated by propagandizing then pseudoscience from the lectern replaced mysticism from the pulpit. First we learn myths, then reason then science. And those who cannot climb that ladder remain at the prior rung. And how can a classical liberal education exist without grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, history, and debate? At present it appears that the empirical science saves us from the liberal reason just as reason saves us from the Christian/Jewish:Egyptian/Babylonian mysticism of the great lie. So, pray tell, what is a liberal education? Because at present the evidence is quite clear that it is a device for teaching pseudoscience largely to women, absent the test of it by the logic of debate under logical laws of grammar and rhetoric that survive comparison with history, for the sole purpose of profiting from the process of selling them pseudoscience? This criticism.damns the academy, damns the incentives of professors and the academy, damns the content they profess, and damns the vast consequences of their teachings: the use of women voters to systematically dismantle rule of law, the great compromise that is the nuclear family, the inter-generational transfer of knowledge using savings and interest, and the second conquest of the west by pseudoscience women, slaves and immigrants – for profit. So completely similar to the first conquest of the west with the first great lie of monotheism by women, slaves, and immigrants. If anything we must damn the academy and the liberal education as nothing more than profiteering from the systematic destruction of western civilization. And I come to this conclusion from the data. Not from introspection, wishful thinking, and the stated ambitions of the academy – that would require rhetorical fallacy contrary to the evidence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/…/liberal-educati…
-
A Dramatic Change
[P]ropertarianism and Testimonialism together are as great an advancement over the scientific era as the scientific era was over the rationalist, and the rationalist over the mystical. No kidding. We can revolutionize human thought, action, existence, and history.
-
A Dramatic Change
[P]ropertarianism and Testimonialism together are as great an advancement over the scientific era as the scientific era was over the rationalist, and the rationalist over the mystical. No kidding. We can revolutionize human thought, action, existence, and history.
-
Philip Saunders Frames The Narrative Correctly
[F]rom Philip:
“The operating philosophy of the 20th century was relativism in the domain of ideas, combined with universalism in the realm of institutions. This expressed itself in the subjectivistic movements of modernism and postmodernism, combined with the socio-economic trends of communism, fascism and statist neoliberalism. “The 21st century is the polar opposite. With unlimited access to information and global connectivity, we’re moving towards more universalism in the domain of ideas, culture and philosophy (which is not to be misunderstood for homogeneity, but rather the belief that there are universal standards by which ideologies or cultures can be judged or disputed), combined with relativism in the domain of institutions. “
-
Philip Saunders Frames The Narrative Correctly
[F]rom Philip:
“The operating philosophy of the 20th century was relativism in the domain of ideas, combined with universalism in the realm of institutions. This expressed itself in the subjectivistic movements of modernism and postmodernism, combined with the socio-economic trends of communism, fascism and statist neoliberalism. “The 21st century is the polar opposite. With unlimited access to information and global connectivity, we’re moving towards more universalism in the domain of ideas, culture and philosophy (which is not to be misunderstood for homogeneity, but rather the belief that there are universal standards by which ideologies or cultures can be judged or disputed), combined with relativism in the domain of institutions. “
-
Yes, I Know That Sometimes You Need To Read, and Re-Read…
[Y]ep. You gotta read, re-read, and think about some of the stuff I write. Sorry. I do too. Writing a proof, which is most of what I try to do, does not mean that I understand all the implications of what I write when I write it. I often go back and say “wow… I wrote that? Without the aid of hallucinogens?” At the time I wrote it I was doing what you would think of as mathematics or engineering. I don’t always see the implications of it until I review it later. The degree to which I discover things while attempting to construct proofs is not easy for others to see. But I tend to stumble upon insights I tend only to vaguely intuit, and only understand as I am writing the logical consequences. This is what Mises meant but could not articulate. I wish I could talk to him for just an hour or two. Same with Hayek.
-
Yes, I Know That Sometimes You Need To Read, and Re-Read…
[Y]ep. You gotta read, re-read, and think about some of the stuff I write. Sorry. I do too. Writing a proof, which is most of what I try to do, does not mean that I understand all the implications of what I write when I write it. I often go back and say “wow… I wrote that? Without the aid of hallucinogens?” At the time I wrote it I was doing what you would think of as mathematics or engineering. I don’t always see the implications of it until I review it later. The degree to which I discover things while attempting to construct proofs is not easy for others to see. But I tend to stumble upon insights I tend only to vaguely intuit, and only understand as I am writing the logical consequences. This is what Mises meant but could not articulate. I wish I could talk to him for just an hour or two. Same with Hayek.
-
Markets Provide Information
[J]ust as you cannot know anything about an economy without a market of exchanges of goods and services resulting in prices by which you can make decisions, you cannot know anything about society without a market of exchanges of commons resulting in prices by which you can make decisions.