Curt Doolittle

Theme: Civilization

  • Prelude to Civil War – Via Washington Himself

    Jan 30, 2020, 5:20 PM

    “At a time, when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would beg leave to add, should be the last resource, the dernier resort. Addresses to the throne, and remonstrances to Parliament, we have already, it is said, proved the inefficacy of. How far, then, their attention to our rights and privileges is to be awakened or alarmed, by starving their trade and manufacturers, remains to be tried.” ~ George Washington, Letter to George Mason (April 5, 1769)

  • A Huge Empathy Deficit in The Far East

    A Huge Empathy Deficit in The Far East. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/a-huge-empathy-deficit-in-the-far-east/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:55:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266745159267606528

  • Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able

    Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/any-people-can-copy-them-if-they-are-able-it-appears-no-one-else-is-able/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:50:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266743690682302465

  • Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:52 AM There is a difference between european people (a race), european culture (a tradition), european civilization (a strategy), and the institutional TECHNOLOGY in science, language, myth, literature, philosophy, law, institutions. Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able. And this is the ONLY remaining european technological advantage: genetics and civilization. And this remaining advantage is what the enemy seeks to destroy as they did Greece, Rome, and the continent.

  • Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:52 AM There is a difference between european people (a race), european culture (a tradition), european civilization (a strategy), and the institutional TECHNOLOGY in science, language, myth, literature, philosophy, law, institutions. Any people can copy them if they are able – it appears no one else is able. And this is the ONLY remaining european technological advantage: genetics and civilization. And this remaining advantage is what the enemy seeks to destroy as they did Greece, Rome, and the continent.

  • Western Aristocracy Testifies

    Western Aristocracy Testifies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/western-aristocracy-testifies/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:48:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266743265715462144

  • Western Aristocracy Testifies

    Feb 4, 2020, 10:46 AM Greg’s comment that GSRRM is witness intimidation and his suggestion that we maintain a consistent western paradigm accessible to the people sparked an insight that I had to stew on overnight. But it consists of three parts: first that we have always used both positive religious and negative judicial priesthoods – even though we invented philosophy as a bridge. That westerners are always testifying as if before thang or court, or reporting as if before officers. That our piety is both judicial and aspirational. And that our commons of truth is the result of this compartmentalisation of ethics and our justification of action across the spectrum from intolerant law to forgiving religion thereby providing both maximal opportunity and graceful failure on one end and maximum decidability and intolerance exposing failure on the other.

  • Western Aristocracy Testifies

    Feb 4, 2020, 10:46 AM Greg’s comment that GSRRM is witness intimidation and his suggestion that we maintain a consistent western paradigm accessible to the people sparked an insight that I had to stew on overnight. But it consists of three parts: first that we have always used both positive religious and negative judicial priesthoods – even though we invented philosophy as a bridge. That westerners are always testifying as if before thang or court, or reporting as if before officers. That our piety is both judicial and aspirational. And that our commons of truth is the result of this compartmentalisation of ethics and our justification of action across the spectrum from intolerant law to forgiving religion thereby providing both maximal opportunity and graceful failure on one end and maximum decidability and intolerance exposing failure on the other.

  • Attempts to Create Multiple Incompatible World Views

    Feb 4, 2020, 1:01 PM by Predmetsky Rosenborg Heidegger is oftentimes very near the surface when it comes to post-structuralist advocacy of diversity, especially in the work of someone like Chantal Mouffe who draws on Derrida, the later Wittgenstein and Carl Schmitt to try to articulate a scenario in which multiple incompatible worldviews could coexist in the same region. R selected types like conflict because they extract resources from the conflict itself and from its leftovers. She tries to modify Schmitt’s view of politics as inherently antagonistic and rooted in the friend enemy distinction, by advocating friendly agonism rather than lethal antagonism. But underneath this is this Heideggerian idea that people basically don’t think that their own ideas correspond to a mind-independent reality; that a MusIim and a Christian can be convinced to discard whatever is “problematic” in their worldview and settle for a highly redacted and westernized counterfeit. You see this especially in obnoxious Heideggerian readings of Christianity in “neo-Orthodox” theologians like Rudolf Bultmann who argues that it doesn’t even matter for Christianity if Jesus really died because it’s all about the experience of the story. Most people don’t actually think like this though. They think that their beliefs are true and that their truth matters and they aren’t willing to pretend like it’s just a meaningless story whose truth-value is irrelevant. People take their worldviews very seriously, and as Carl Schmitt understood, they are often willing to kill or die in their defense.

    CD: I admire this work. I cannot engage in this kind of literary analysis and exposition of emotion and intuition without first converting it to existential “laundered” (value neutral) terms. I only work with what is false, possible, impossible, and irreciprocal or reciprocal. The challenge is finding the VERY FEW others that can discuss these subjects in a scientific paradigm of consistent rational terms, and organizing what I consider sophistry, or secular theology into the scientific frame but while comparing and maintaining the frame of each original author. I suspect this is why i just can’t stand reading what I consider sophistry and secular theology – because converting it is extraordinarily burdensome, and I perceive every sentence as an attempt to lie.

  • Attempts to Create Multiple Incompatible World Views

    Feb 4, 2020, 1:01 PM by Predmetsky Rosenborg Heidegger is oftentimes very near the surface when it comes to post-structuralist advocacy of diversity, especially in the work of someone like Chantal Mouffe who draws on Derrida, the later Wittgenstein and Carl Schmitt to try to articulate a scenario in which multiple incompatible worldviews could coexist in the same region. R selected types like conflict because they extract resources from the conflict itself and from its leftovers. She tries to modify Schmitt’s view of politics as inherently antagonistic and rooted in the friend enemy distinction, by advocating friendly agonism rather than lethal antagonism. But underneath this is this Heideggerian idea that people basically don’t think that their own ideas correspond to a mind-independent reality; that a MusIim and a Christian can be convinced to discard whatever is “problematic” in their worldview and settle for a highly redacted and westernized counterfeit. You see this especially in obnoxious Heideggerian readings of Christianity in “neo-Orthodox” theologians like Rudolf Bultmann who argues that it doesn’t even matter for Christianity if Jesus really died because it’s all about the experience of the story. Most people don’t actually think like this though. They think that their beliefs are true and that their truth matters and they aren’t willing to pretend like it’s just a meaningless story whose truth-value is irrelevant. People take their worldviews very seriously, and as Carl Schmitt understood, they are often willing to kill or die in their defense.

    CD: I admire this work. I cannot engage in this kind of literary analysis and exposition of emotion and intuition without first converting it to existential “laundered” (value neutral) terms. I only work with what is false, possible, impossible, and irreciprocal or reciprocal. The challenge is finding the VERY FEW others that can discuss these subjects in a scientific paradigm of consistent rational terms, and organizing what I consider sophistry, or secular theology into the scientific frame but while comparing and maintaining the frame of each original author. I suspect this is why i just can’t stand reading what I consider sophistry and secular theology – because converting it is extraordinarily burdensome, and I perceive every sentence as an attempt to lie.