Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • Beautiful Quotes from Bill Joslin

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:34 PM

    Bill: “We don’t try to beat the other leader. We try to find an opportunity to add value. We don’t negatively signal each other (other than to test an idea). There are people you won’t ‘jive with’ because of their state of development or goal, but stick with those who you get the most from. I found my role as a teacher, and especially for dads and families. That’s who I resonate most with. I didn’t plan it. Its what I bring to the table that adds value to everyone else.” Bill: “We have this assumption that burke and locke and others invent something new, but they were just recalling (as did aristotle) what was already embedded in the culture. These traditions were part of our traditional germanic and celtic law, and independent of greece (greeks tried them at scale). So the anglo enlightenment was trying to capture what they were afraid of what was being lost – just like socrates, plato, and aristotle.” Bill: “How do we write this down and preserve it so that it can rise again. Because the planet won’t have an opportunity to recreate the european tradition of sovereignty, reciprocity, and rule of law. So it’s up to us to preserve as much as we can so it can rise again. And that, to me, is a spiritual endeavour.”

  • Beautiful Quotes from Bill Joslin

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:34 PM

    Bill: “We don’t try to beat the other leader. We try to find an opportunity to add value. We don’t negatively signal each other (other than to test an idea). There are people you won’t ‘jive with’ because of their state of development or goal, but stick with those who you get the most from. I found my role as a teacher, and especially for dads and families. That’s who I resonate most with. I didn’t plan it. Its what I bring to the table that adds value to everyone else.” Bill: “We have this assumption that burke and locke and others invent something new, but they were just recalling (as did aristotle) what was already embedded in the culture. These traditions were part of our traditional germanic and celtic law, and independent of greece (greeks tried them at scale). So the anglo enlightenment was trying to capture what they were afraid of what was being lost – just like socrates, plato, and aristotle.” Bill: “How do we write this down and preserve it so that it can rise again. Because the planet won’t have an opportunity to recreate the european tradition of sovereignty, reciprocity, and rule of law. So it’s up to us to preserve as much as we can so it can rise again. And that, to me, is a spiritual endeavour.”

  • Definition: Right Wing?

    Mar 21, 2020, 7:05 PM STIPULATIONS: 0 – Inveriance in human nature 1 – Anti-Hubris (Presumption of hubris) 2 – Requiring Evidence before action. 3 – Political Institutions: Military, Duty, Merit, Property, Law, Benevolent Adversarialism. 4 – Family Institutions: church, marriage, family, humility, 5 – Civil Institutions: virtues, norms, manners. 6 – Western Tradition: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Beauty, Status, Dominance, Hierarchy – Stability and excellence (capitalization) over experience and novelty (consumption) RIGHT WING [ˌrīt ˈwiNG] NOUN (the right wing) the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system. “a candidate from the right wing of the party” ADJECTIVE conservative or reactionary. “a right-wing Republican senator” A person or group with conservative or capitalist views. synonyms: conservative · rightist · ultra-conservative · alt-right · blimpish · diehard · reactionary · traditionalist · conventional · traditional · old-fashioned · unprogressive · Birchite CONSERVATISM Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights. Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. The more traditional elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were” Solidarity Solidarity is an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes. Rule of law the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes Private property Civil Society Communitarianism Familism Family values HISTORY Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity.[2] The more traditional elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were”.[3][4] The first established use of the term in a political context originated in 1818 with François-René de Chateaubriand[5] during the period of Bourbon Restoration that sought to roll back the policies of the French Revolution. Historically associated with right-wing politics, the term has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution, but supported the American Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.[6] According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959: “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself”.[7]

  • Definition: Right Wing?

    Mar 21, 2020, 7:05 PM STIPULATIONS: 0 – Inveriance in human nature 1 – Anti-Hubris (Presumption of hubris) 2 – Requiring Evidence before action. 3 – Political Institutions: Military, Duty, Merit, Property, Law, Benevolent Adversarialism. 4 – Family Institutions: church, marriage, family, humility, 5 – Civil Institutions: virtues, norms, manners. 6 – Western Tradition: Heroism, Excellence, Truth, Beauty, Status, Dominance, Hierarchy – Stability and excellence (capitalization) over experience and novelty (consumption) RIGHT WING [ˌrīt ˈwiNG] NOUN (the right wing) the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system. “a candidate from the right wing of the party” ADJECTIVE conservative or reactionary. “a right-wing Republican senator” A person or group with conservative or capitalist views. synonyms: conservative · rightist · ultra-conservative · alt-right · blimpish · diehard · reactionary · traditionalist · conventional · traditional · old-fashioned · unprogressive · Birchite CONSERVATISM Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights. Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity. The more traditional elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were” Solidarity Solidarity is an awareness of shared interests, objectives, standards, and sympathies creating a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes. Rule of law the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes Private property Civil Society Communitarianism Familism Family values HISTORY Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as religion, parliamentary government, and property rights, with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity.[2] The more traditional elements—reactionaries—oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were”.[3][4] The first established use of the term in a political context originated in 1818 with François-René de Chateaubriand[5] during the period of Bourbon Restoration that sought to roll back the policies of the French Revolution. Historically associated with right-wing politics, the term has since been used to describe a wide range of views. There is no single set of policies regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues. Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician who opposed the French Revolution, but supported the American Revolution, is credited as one of the main theorists of conservatism in Great Britain in the 1790s.[6] According to Quintin Hogg, the chairman of the British Conservative Party in 1959: “Conservatism is not so much a philosophy as an attitude, a constant force, performing a timeless function in the development of a free society, and corresponding to a deep and permanent requirement of human nature itself”.[7]

  • Markets And The Necessity Of Full Accounting

    Mar 22, 2020, 11:24 AM Questions: Are we running barrel-making as a private corporation? Or are we running the city as a private corporation? Or are we running the state as a private corporation? Or are we running the empire as a private corporation? Or are we running the civilization as a private corporation? Or are we running the world as a private corporation? Let’s say we have 200 men working in barrel making. if some group wants to come into town and set up shop, or sell barrels within the town, what are the trade offs?

    (a) Dilute the market they take away from the others in the town.

    (b) Cause a reduction in prices if the prices are extractive

    (c) Put everyone out of business by doing so and raise the cost of barrels produced elsewhere, and force the reconstitution of the industry internally. Now, increase transportability. Rivers, ships, railroads, trucks, and the opportunity to compete across markets increases, and the opportunity to shift production increases because of it. … until you’re burning capital. So my point being that unless you’re measuring capital rather than price you don’t know if your general rule is true. Right now we’re seeing the fallacy of the utility of globalism: fragility.Well, we’re also seeing the fallacy of the utility of urbanism. Fragility and risk. Thinking this process through will generally cause us to break our bad habits by failing full accounting.

  • Markets And The Necessity Of Full Accounting

    Mar 22, 2020, 11:24 AM Questions: Are we running barrel-making as a private corporation? Or are we running the city as a private corporation? Or are we running the state as a private corporation? Or are we running the empire as a private corporation? Or are we running the civilization as a private corporation? Or are we running the world as a private corporation? Let’s say we have 200 men working in barrel making. if some group wants to come into town and set up shop, or sell barrels within the town, what are the trade offs?

    (a) Dilute the market they take away from the others in the town.

    (b) Cause a reduction in prices if the prices are extractive

    (c) Put everyone out of business by doing so and raise the cost of barrels produced elsewhere, and force the reconstitution of the industry internally. Now, increase transportability. Rivers, ships, railroads, trucks, and the opportunity to compete across markets increases, and the opportunity to shift production increases because of it. … until you’re burning capital. So my point being that unless you’re measuring capital rather than price you don’t know if your general rule is true. Right now we’re seeing the fallacy of the utility of globalism: fragility.Well, we’re also seeing the fallacy of the utility of urbanism. Fragility and risk. Thinking this process through will generally cause us to break our bad habits by failing full accounting.

  • An Essential Insight Into the Status of Our Religions

    Mar 22, 2020, 5:39 PM by Tim Beckley I do see this as an essential insight. Christianity could never have maintained a monopoly in the Western market for religious goods and services (ritual, education, etc.). I think one problem preventing this realization in the West is that we were subjected to its belligerence for so long that we’ve largely forgotten what native European polytheism actually looks like in all its kaleidoscopic diversity. The interesting thing is that Western polytheism has been developing in defiance of the One Church from at least the 12th century AD and has since, in large measure, conquered the world, but we simply don’t recognize it as such, don’t see our conquest as having a spiritual or properly religious component- an effect, I think, of the violence with which Christianity asserted its claim to exclusive and unassailable religious Truth. Most still view our native expressions of religious sentiment through a Christian filter that falsely renders them profane, even many who explicitly reject or never believed the claims of that faith. Another complicating factor is that an equally anti-Western, authoritarian competitor to Christianity with the same fanatical aspirations to monopoly power is already well-established- what we call Judaism 3.0, or Christianity 2.0, or Marxism/Feminism/Postmodernism- and it’s been receiving Christian apostates (mostly women, underclasses, and betas) for over 150 years. These new zealots also fail to recognize their conversion as a religious one, or as a conversion at all, and for the same reason that so few recognize the advancements of European polytheism in the arts and sciences- the old claim that everything non-Christian must be secular is still tacitly accepted by most. So it makes me wonder, considering their innate psychological differences, to what extent are the adherents of Christianity 2.0 faithful to its absurd doctrines simply for lack of a viable market alternative. Also, as Christianity absorbed the best and most celebrated aspects of pagan religious belief and custom, so too has Christianity 2.0 been appropriating and subverting the best of modern Western polytheism, presenting distorted versions of our myths in advertising and entertainment, in Universities, in the diversity meetings of the business world- absolutely everywhere, so that the disorientation of the religious consumer, as well as any aspiring producer of a new authentically European religious or spiritual art form, is practically debilitating. I see at least three general types of pre-packaged religious product being marketable in our circles. The first is a kind of translation of the Christian Bible in P-terms in the way that James describes. The second, for those who want nothing to do with Christianity, is a kind of an assembled canon of evocative and useful native European myths, from classical to contemporary times. The third, and most interesting to me, is an entirely new creative myth that orients itself in direct opposition to the still amorphous yet ever-expanding Levantine church that threatens to engulf the whole of the Western world today. This would be a counterpart of the grail quest legends and courtly romances of High Middle Ages which represented the reemergence of the European principles of individual judgement and rational thought and marked the beginning of the end of that first failed attempt to suffocate the West in Abrahamic ignorance and deceit.

  • An Essential Insight Into the Status of Our Religions

    Mar 22, 2020, 5:39 PM by Tim Beckley I do see this as an essential insight. Christianity could never have maintained a monopoly in the Western market for religious goods and services (ritual, education, etc.). I think one problem preventing this realization in the West is that we were subjected to its belligerence for so long that we’ve largely forgotten what native European polytheism actually looks like in all its kaleidoscopic diversity. The interesting thing is that Western polytheism has been developing in defiance of the One Church from at least the 12th century AD and has since, in large measure, conquered the world, but we simply don’t recognize it as such, don’t see our conquest as having a spiritual or properly religious component- an effect, I think, of the violence with which Christianity asserted its claim to exclusive and unassailable religious Truth. Most still view our native expressions of religious sentiment through a Christian filter that falsely renders them profane, even many who explicitly reject or never believed the claims of that faith. Another complicating factor is that an equally anti-Western, authoritarian competitor to Christianity with the same fanatical aspirations to monopoly power is already well-established- what we call Judaism 3.0, or Christianity 2.0, or Marxism/Feminism/Postmodernism- and it’s been receiving Christian apostates (mostly women, underclasses, and betas) for over 150 years. These new zealots also fail to recognize their conversion as a religious one, or as a conversion at all, and for the same reason that so few recognize the advancements of European polytheism in the arts and sciences- the old claim that everything non-Christian must be secular is still tacitly accepted by most. So it makes me wonder, considering their innate psychological differences, to what extent are the adherents of Christianity 2.0 faithful to its absurd doctrines simply for lack of a viable market alternative. Also, as Christianity absorbed the best and most celebrated aspects of pagan religious belief and custom, so too has Christianity 2.0 been appropriating and subverting the best of modern Western polytheism, presenting distorted versions of our myths in advertising and entertainment, in Universities, in the diversity meetings of the business world- absolutely everywhere, so that the disorientation of the religious consumer, as well as any aspiring producer of a new authentically European religious or spiritual art form, is practically debilitating. I see at least three general types of pre-packaged religious product being marketable in our circles. The first is a kind of translation of the Christian Bible in P-terms in the way that James describes. The second, for those who want nothing to do with Christianity, is a kind of an assembled canon of evocative and useful native European myths, from classical to contemporary times. The third, and most interesting to me, is an entirely new creative myth that orients itself in direct opposition to the still amorphous yet ever-expanding Levantine church that threatens to engulf the whole of the Western world today. This would be a counterpart of the grail quest legends and courtly romances of High Middle Ages which represented the reemergence of the European principles of individual judgement and rational thought and marked the beginning of the end of that first failed attempt to suffocate the West in Abrahamic ignorance and deceit.

  • Institute and Cost of The Foundations Course

    Mar 25, 2020, 3:14 PM (in response to message at bottom of post) 1 – The reason we charge money for courses is to filter people OUT, and keep people with it so they don’t waste instructor and peer time. People who don’t pay don’t stick with it. 2 – We accommodate those who who have less money – just ask. We are willing to “pay what you can”. 3 – We are not trying to build a student base yet. People in the course are those deeply interested in p willing to help us develop the core courses. 4 – We are, I am, building the foundations course very slowly. Releasing it as I can. And there are many things competing for my time because of the election year. The foundations course is by far the hardest course to create. It is not a matter of selecting textbooks, but writing it as we go along. Once the foundations course is done, we will use the income to split between the teacher and someone to administer the site and recruit professors for other content. This will let me (curt) work with professors on content rather than produce it all in competition with everything else I’m doing. 5 – The pricing is a test. Our target price is 200 per core course not 100. So people who are patient while we work on the courses get the discount for their patience. The average cost per online college credit hour is $400 (1200 per course). Our cost will be 100-200 per course. We will, of courses, produce videos for the average person once the courses have been tested with live students. So you can’t participate in the course for free but you may be able to watch some of the videos. Why? There is a difference between making you aware of something and spending effort educating you. 6 – The Institute is a test. It appears it is going to work. For it to work as we desire, we need a faster hosting platform. To do that we have to pay for it. To pay for it we need to charge for it. 7 – The ‘funded’ parts of the institute will hopefully attract donors if we scale. Donors will offset the cost of education for those with less money. 8 – The institute is organized as a non profit with goals of eventually obtaining certification. So we operate as if we intend to have certification. But we operate to distribut the message not to fund endowments. 9 – Our goal is to give you the best education in western civlization that is possible at a trivial price. And please try to be merciful. Donations pay for hosting and trivial costs. We are all volunteers. I have so much to do I can’t do anything but sprint every day all day long. This is a labor of love for our people by all of us. Everyone in the P community working to make our movement happen is a volunteer and none of us do it for money. Contact Us Message —“It appears (on the surface anyway) your goal is to educate people on the merits of this “movement”. Admirable indeed. However, I take issue with the high cost in dollars you are charging for this “education”. Logic would indicate that if your goal were to get this philosophy in to the mainstream, you would not be charging money to do so. The fact you do put a price tag on this seems to indicate your goal is to amass wealth, not educate the masses on the merits of this philosophy as you seem to make it appear. If indeed education of the masses is your goal, you would do so freely, or at the most, for a small fee to cover the operating cost. Even then a donation based system would be superior. So, I’m left to wonder: Scam? Gimmick? Con?……. While I am very interested in learning more on the subject of Propertarianism, I have little interest in filling greedy purses. If/when you place your message above your pockets I will return. Until then……….. Good Day.”— Privacy Matters not@given.org 172.77.26.XX (via Frontier Communications) CD: This kind of thing is what makes me want to stop working on the project, because these people don’t deserve it.

  • Institute and Cost of The Foundations Course

    Mar 25, 2020, 3:14 PM (in response to message at bottom of post) 1 – The reason we charge money for courses is to filter people OUT, and keep people with it so they don’t waste instructor and peer time. People who don’t pay don’t stick with it. 2 – We accommodate those who who have less money – just ask. We are willing to “pay what you can”. 3 – We are not trying to build a student base yet. People in the course are those deeply interested in p willing to help us develop the core courses. 4 – We are, I am, building the foundations course very slowly. Releasing it as I can. And there are many things competing for my time because of the election year. The foundations course is by far the hardest course to create. It is not a matter of selecting textbooks, but writing it as we go along. Once the foundations course is done, we will use the income to split between the teacher and someone to administer the site and recruit professors for other content. This will let me (curt) work with professors on content rather than produce it all in competition with everything else I’m doing. 5 – The pricing is a test. Our target price is 200 per core course not 100. So people who are patient while we work on the courses get the discount for their patience. The average cost per online college credit hour is $400 (1200 per course). Our cost will be 100-200 per course. We will, of courses, produce videos for the average person once the courses have been tested with live students. So you can’t participate in the course for free but you may be able to watch some of the videos. Why? There is a difference between making you aware of something and spending effort educating you. 6 – The Institute is a test. It appears it is going to work. For it to work as we desire, we need a faster hosting platform. To do that we have to pay for it. To pay for it we need to charge for it. 7 – The ‘funded’ parts of the institute will hopefully attract donors if we scale. Donors will offset the cost of education for those with less money. 8 – The institute is organized as a non profit with goals of eventually obtaining certification. So we operate as if we intend to have certification. But we operate to distribut the message not to fund endowments. 9 – Our goal is to give you the best education in western civlization that is possible at a trivial price. And please try to be merciful. Donations pay for hosting and trivial costs. We are all volunteers. I have so much to do I can’t do anything but sprint every day all day long. This is a labor of love for our people by all of us. Everyone in the P community working to make our movement happen is a volunteer and none of us do it for money. Contact Us Message —“It appears (on the surface anyway) your goal is to educate people on the merits of this “movement”. Admirable indeed. However, I take issue with the high cost in dollars you are charging for this “education”. Logic would indicate that if your goal were to get this philosophy in to the mainstream, you would not be charging money to do so. The fact you do put a price tag on this seems to indicate your goal is to amass wealth, not educate the masses on the merits of this philosophy as you seem to make it appear. If indeed education of the masses is your goal, you would do so freely, or at the most, for a small fee to cover the operating cost. Even then a donation based system would be superior. So, I’m left to wonder: Scam? Gimmick? Con?……. While I am very interested in learning more on the subject of Propertarianism, I have little interest in filling greedy purses. If/when you place your message above your pockets I will return. Until then……….. Good Day.”— Privacy Matters not@given.org 172.77.26.XX (via Frontier Communications) CD: This kind of thing is what makes me want to stop working on the project, because these people don’t deserve it.